State v. Hernandez, 449 P.3d 878

Officer Mace stopped Hernandez for traffic infractions; Hernandez exited then sat back in the driver’s seat with the door open and appeared nervous.
Mace observed Hernandez reach several times under the driver‑side dashboard (toward the fuse‑box area); Mace told him to stop because he feared for his safety.
Hernandez claimed he was reaching for his license (contradicting an earlier statement that his license was in another vehicle); on a fourth quick reach Mace grabbed and arrested him for interfering with a peace officer (ORS 162.247(1)(b)).
While Hernandez was handcuffed and pinned to the vehicle, Mace looked under the dash where Hernandez had been reaching and retrieved a baggie containing methamphetamine.
A drug dog unit then conducted additional searches (consent disputed) that uncovered more drugs, a backpack, and a small safe containing drugs and a scale.
Hernandez moved to suppress all evidence as derivative of an unlawful initial search; the trial court granted suppression, finding the initial search was not justified as incident to arrest because the officer already had the elements of the crime. The state appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless search under the dashboard was a lawful search incident to arrest because it sought evidence related to the crime of arrest	Mace reasonably searched where Hernandez had been reaching to discover motive/evidence related to refusal to obey a lawful order	Any evidence under the dash (motive) is only minimally relevant; officer already had prima facie evidence for the arrest, so search incident to arrest was not justified	Reversed: motive evidence is reasonably related to the crime of interfering with an officer; search incident to arrest was permissible
Whether the search was reasonable in time, scope, and intensity as required for a search incident to arrest	The search occurred seconds after arrest and was narrowly limited to the specific area within Hernandez’s reach	The crime typically lacks instrumentalities or fruits that could be concealed, so incident‑to‑arrest searches should not apply broadly	Search was timely and narrowly tailored to the area within immediate control; reasonable under the totality of circumstances

State v. Owens, 302 Or 196 (1986) (establishes two‑part test for searches incident to arrest: relation to the crime and reasonableness under the circumstances)
State v. Fesler, 68 Or App 609 (1984) (upholds a vehicle search for identification evidence because it bore on defendant’s motive and consciousness of guilt)
State v. Bridewell, 306 Or 231 (1988) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they fit established exceptions)
State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (1993) (appellate review of trial court suppression findings: factual findings binding if supported)
State v. Washington, 265 Or App 532 (2014) (search‑incident‑to‑arrest must be reasonable in time, scope, and intensity; limited to area in arrestee’s immediate control)
State v. Ruggles, 238 Or App 86 (2010) (to prove ORS 162.247 the state must show refusal to obey, which implies knowledge and intent)