State v. Krause, 383 P.3d 307

Background

Officer Berry stopped defendant for traffic violations, learned the van lacked insurance, and arranged for it to be towed.
Berry allowed defendant to remove items; defendant left a backpack on the passenger seat.
Following Beaverton’s towing inventory policy, Berry opened the backpack and observed marijuana, hypodermic needles, and a closed Altoids tin.
Based on those observations, Berry concluded she had probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a school and opened the Altoids tin, finding methamphetamine.
Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of methamphetamine and moved to suppress the tin’s contents under Article I, § 9 of the Oregon Constitution; the trial court denied suppression.
The state appeals court affirmed, holding the search of the Altoids tin was a permissible search incident to arrest.

Issues

-> Issue: Whether opening the closed Altoids tin inside a backpack found in the van was a lawful search incident to arrest.
-> Plaintiff's Argument: State (Berry) — The inventory search legitimized opening the backpack; once probable cause to arrest arose from items in plain view, Berry could search closed containers (the tin) incident to arrest even though defendant had exited the van.
-> Defendant's Argument: — The officer developed probable cause only after defendant had been removed from the van and lacked control of the backpack/tin, so the search incident to arrest exception did not justify opening the tin.
-> Held: Court — Search was lawful: an officer may search for evidence of the crime of arrest even after the suspect has left the vehicle if the evidence could reasonably be concealed there and the search is reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.

-> Issue: Whether exigency is required when searching for evidence of the crime of arrest after defendant has been removed from the area.
-> Plaintiff's Argument: State — Exigency is not required for searches aimed at discovering evidence of the crime of arrest; such searches can be reasonable even if defendant no longer controls the area.
-> Defendant's Argument: — Exigency remains central; absent exigent circumstances and when the police have time, they must obtain a warrant before searching closed containers.
-> Held: Court — Exigency is not a prerequisite for searches intended to discover evidence of the crime of arrest; the key is that the evidence could reasonably be in the area and the search be reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mazzola, 356 Or 804 (search incident to arrest may serve to protect officer safety, prevent destruction of evidence, or discover evidence of the crime of arrest)
State v. Washington, 265 Or App 532 (officer may search closed containers in a car incident to driver’s arrest if containers were in driver’s immediate control before arrest and could conceal evidence)
State v. Augard, 122 Or App 485 (search of vehicle immediately after DUII arrest reasonable in time and scope despite defendant having left car before arrest)
State v. Burgholzer, 185 Or App 254 (search of car incident to arrest permissible where defendant had been driving immediately before arrest)
State v. Clew, 187 Or App 322 (search incident to arrest reasonable when it occurred immediately after arrest and followed discovery of crime during vehicle tow process)
State v. Kemp, 112 Or App 522 (probable cause can justify a search incident to arrest even before formal custody)
State v. Kelly, 274 Or App 363 (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless an exception applies)
State v. Caraher, 293 Or 741 (search incident to arrest must be reasonable in time, scope, and intensity)