State v. George, 401 P.3d 1249

Trooper Jubitz responded to backup call for an assault suspect described as a woman in a purple jacket; he saw a tan station wagon driven by a woman matching that description with defendant as passenger.
Jubitz approached the parked car, determined the driver was not the assault suspect, but observed an open beer can on the passenger seat (ORS 811.170) and smelled alcohol on defendant.
When Jubitz opened the passenger door to secure the open container, he was hit by a strong odor of marijuana, saw a duffel bag, opened it slightly, and observed over an ounce of marijuana. Defendant was arrested.
Defendant moved to suppress statements and evidence seized, arguing the warrantless search violated Article I, §9 of the Oregon Constitution and that the automobile exception did not apply once the initial reason for the stop dissipated.
Trial court denied the motion, concluding the automobile exception applied because the vehicle had been mobile when stopped and officers had probable cause to search for the open container and then for marijuana; defendant pled guilty reserving appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the automobile exception permits a warrantless search when the officer's initial basis for stopping the vehicle dissipates before the search	The State: automobile exception has two independent prongs (mobility at time of stop; probable cause to search); mobility creates a per se exigency regardless of whether initial suspicion persists	Ortega: per se exigency ends if officer’s initial reason for the stop dissipates; mobility must be linked to the initial suspected crime	Court affirmed: prongs are independent; per se exigency from mobility remains even if the officer’s initial suspicion dissipates, so long as vehicle was mobile when encountered and probable cause for a search exists
Whether probable cause for a traffic violation (open container) can support an automobile-exception search that uncovers evidence of another crime (marijuana)	The State: probable cause may arise from a traffic violation encountered during the stop and suffices for the automobile exception	Ortega: traffic violations are not "suspected crime" evidence under some formulations; argues Kurokawa-Lasciak language limits exception to crimes	Court held: probable cause need not be limited to the original suspected crime; probable cause from a traffic violation can justify a search under the automobile exception

State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268 (1986) (announces bright-line automobile-exception rule: vehicle mobile at time encountered + probable cause justifies warrantless search)
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (original articulation that vehicle mobility can create exigency for warrantless search)
State v. Kock, 302 Or. 29 (1986) (automobile exception does not apply where vehicle is parked, immobile, and unoccupied when first encountered)
State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 351 Or. 179 (2011) (reiterates mobility-at-encounter requirement and frames exception as limited)
State v. Andersen, 361 Or. 187 (2017) (reaffirms Brown rule and mobility requirement; notes possibility that changing technology could affect exception)
State v. Watson, 353 Or. 768 (2013) (recognizes automobile exception can permit search based on probable cause for contraband even where officer declines to cite traffic violation)
State v. Bliss, 283 Or. App. 833 (2017) (holds automobile exception may apply when a traffic stop yields probable cause to search for contraband)