State v. Groom
244 P.3d 913
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Keizer police followed the vehicle and learned the owner had a drug-related warrant.
- When the officer located the vehicle, it was parked with two women nearby; defendant identified herself as the owner.
- Defendant refused to consent to a vehicle search; another officer noted a man on post-prison supervision and observed a freshly deposited bindle nearby.
- The bindle tested positive for methamphetamine; a drug dog was brought to the scene and alerted to the vehicle and defendant's purse.
- Defendant was advised of Miranda rights and later challenged the search as not within the automobile exception.
- Trial court denied suppression; defendant was convicted based on stipulated facts; appeal challenged the applicability of the automobile exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the automobile exception apply where the vehicle is immobile at first encounter? | State argues current law allows mobile exception; later-formed probable cause suffices. | Groom contends parked/immobile vehicle falls outside the exception. | Yes; exception valid when the vehicle remains operable and not impounded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268 (1986) (established automobile exception to Article I, section 9)
- State v. Meharry, 342 Or. 173 (2006) (explanation of dangers of vehicle mobility and exigency for warrantless search)
- State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 237 Or.App. 492 (2010) (vehicle mobile if operable; impoundment/status affects applicability)
- State v. Coleman, 167 Or.App. 86 (2000) (focus of inquiry on movability at first encounter)