State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak
263 P.3d 336
| Or. | 2011Background
- Defendant KUROKAWA-LASCIAK gambled at Seven Feathers Casino on the Cow Creek Indian Reservation and was suspected of money laundering.
- Casino banned cash transactions for 24 hours, photographed him, and began monitoring his movements via surveillance video.
- Defendant briefly interacted with casino staff; he then left in a rental van and parked in the casino parking lot.
- Police encountered defendant in the parking lot while detaining him on suspicion of money laundering; he was approximately 30 feet from the van when stopped.
- Defendant refused consent to search the van; officers did not impound or inventory the van at that time.
- Later, the van’s keys were given to defendant’s girlfriend Campbell, who, after being questioned, consented to a search that yielded marijuana, hashish, scales, and cash.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the automobile exception permits a warrantless search of a parked, immobile, unoccupied vehicle | Kur o: car must be mobile; Meharry misinterprets mobility. | Kurokawa-Lasciak: mobility requirement should not be extended to parked cars. | Automobile exception does not apply when vehicle is parked and immobile. |
| Whether the van’s mobility at initial encounter was present to justify the search | State: van was mobile when encountered and later remained under control. | Kurokawa-Lasciak: no evidence van was mobile at encounter; no valid basis for search. | No evidence van was mobile at encounter; exception inapplicable. |
| Whether Campbell’s consent could justify the search | State: Campbell's consent to search the van was valid. | Meharry/Weaver: Campbell lacked authority or consent was tainted by prior refusal. | Remanded to Court of Appeals to address Campbell’s consent issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 301 Or. 268 (1986) (first Oregon automobile-exception decision; mobility and probable cause required)
- Kock v. State, 302 Or. 29 (1986) (bright-line rule: parked, immobile, unoccupied cars require warrants unless exigent circumstances)
- Meharry, 342 Or. 173 (2006) (Meharry reaffirmed mobility requirement; addressed Meharry reading of prior cases)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (lead federal doctrine on vehicle searches and mobility justification)
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985) (vehicle as readily mobile; reduced privacy in vehicles justifies on-scene search)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (consent of one occupant as controlling when there is shared access)