State v. Gibson, 342 P.3d 168

Defendant was convicted of two counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), identity theft, and possession of methamphetamine; appeal challenges motion to suppress all evidence obtained from stops/arrests by Portland Police Bureau.
Defendant was arrested on September 9, 2012 and October 17, 2012; the issue is whether probable cause supported both arrests.
Warrantless arrests are permissible under Article I, section 9, Oregon Constitution if probable cause to believe a crime occurred exists.
UUV requires taking or using another’s vehicle without consent, with knowledge that consent was lacking.
September arrest: a stopped 1992 Mazda with defendant as driver; registration/insurance not produced; license suspended; VIN showed stolen vehicle.
October arrest: LoJack located a green Honda reported stolen; defendant and Corbit near the vehicle; officers observed proximity and associations suggesting involvement in car thefts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there probable cause to arrest for UUV in September 2012?	Rayburn/Ayvazov support probable cause.	Facts insufficient to show knowledge of theft.	Yes; probable cause shown.
Was there probable cause to arrest for UUV in October 2012?	Proximity, associations, and stolen-car data establish probable cause.	Proximity alone not enough; Hebrard distinguishes.	Yes; probable cause supported.

State v. Rayburn, 246 Or App 486 (2011) (probable cause lower than guilt; basis in totality of circumstances)
State v. Ayvazov, 246 Or App 641 (2011) (few facts can support probable cause for UUV)
State v. Hebrard, 244 Or App 593 (2011) (proximity alone insufficient for probable cause to arrest)
State v. Mace, 67 Or App 753 (1984) (warrantless arrest requires probable cause)
State v. Ratliff, 82 Or App 479 (1986) (probable cause facts are those known at arrest)