State v. Furrillo, 362 P.3d 273

Background

Deputies stopped a Jeep for speeding; defendant was a passenger with a backpack inside the vehicle.
A drug-detection dog sniffed the exterior of the Jeep and alerted to the presence of drugs, giving deputies probable cause to search the vehicle.
After the dog alert, deputies directed defendant to exit; defendant removed his backpack and set it on the ground.
Deputy Shah picked up the backpack and returned it to the Jeep because he believed it could contain drug evidence; deputies then searched the Jeep and the backpack.
The search produced syringes with a brown liquid in the backpack that later tested positive for heroin; defendant was convicted of unlawful possession and appealed, arguing the backpack search violated state and federal constitutional protections.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a container removed from a vehicle after probable cause exists remains subject to the automobile exception	State: automobile exception applied because vehicle was mobile and deputies had probable cause when dog alerted; container in vehicle may be searched	Devore: returning/searching the backpack was an officer-created exigency; passenger should be able to remove personal effects once outside vehicle	The automobile exception covered the backpack; returning it to the vehicle did not defeat the exception
Whether a backpack is equivalent to a body search (e.g., clothing/pants pocket) and thus outside automobile-exception scope	State: container within vehicle is fair game even if owned by passenger when probable cause tied to vehicle	Devore: backpack akin to clothes or pockets which cannot be searched when occupant is outside vehicle	Backpack is a discrete container within the vehicle and may be searched under both state and federal law
Whether exigency here was created by police and thus invalidates warrantless search	State: exigency arises from vehicle mobility and existed when defendant exited; not a police-created exigency	Devore: returning the backpack created the exigency to justify search	Court: exigency stems from vehicle mobility; police did not rely on an exigency of their own making to justify the search
Scope limits of automobile exception—are there boundaries on containers that may be searched?	State: scope defined by where probable cause points within vehicle; containers in vehicle may be searched	Devore: contends certain personal items should be protected like body searches	Court: scope is tied to object of search; not limitless but includes containers within vehicle that reasonably may hold contraband

Key Cases Cited

State v. Brown, 301 Or 268 (scope of automobile exception defined by places probable cause points)
State v. Bennett/McCall, 265 Or App 448 (officer may search containers within vehicle when probable cause exists)
State v. Smalley, 233 Or App 263 (police may search areas or containers within vehicle where contraband may be found)
State v. Tovar, 256 Or App 1 (trial-court factual findings binding on review; scope of automobile-exception search defined by warrant officer could have obtained)
State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173 (automobile exception is a subset of exigent-circumstances; mobility of vehicle creates exigency)
California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (containers within vehicle may be searched under probable cause)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (scope of vehicle search includes containers where contraband may be concealed)
California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (vehicle mobility permits warrantless searches)
Di Re v. People, 332 U.S. 581 (searches of vehicle occupants’ persons have distinct Fourth Amendment limits)
State v. Jones, 253 Or App 246 (automobile exception does not permit warrantless search of a suspect’s pants pocket while standing outside vehicle)