468 P.3d 1021
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- Officer Powers encountered Rudolph Martinez while on patrol and discovered an active misdemeanor arrest warrant for him.
- Incident to arrest, Powers searched Martinez for weapons and means of escape.
- An opaque white plastic bag protruded from Martinez’s front jacket pocket; Powers removed it and felt a “hard bulge” in the middle.
- Powers unrolled and opened the bag, revealing foil with heroin residue and a glass pipe with methamphetamine residue.
- Martinez was charged with unlawful possession of methamphetamine and moved to suppress the evidence from the bag; the trial court denied the motion and Martinez was convicted.
- On appeal the state conceded that opening the bag was not justified by an officer-safety search incident to arrest; the appellate court reversed and remanded, ordering suppression of the bag evidence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Martinez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial encounter/stop was unlawful | The encounter was not a stop; the contact was lawful | The initial police contact was an unlawful stop requiring suppression of derived evidence | Court agreed with State; encounter was not a stop and that argument was rejected |
| Whether removing and unrolling the bag was a lawful search incident to arrest | Officer could search for weapons incident to arrest; removal and inspection were lawful | Removing/unrolling the bag exceeded a permissible officer-safety search because there was no reason to believe the bag contained a weapon or evidence | Court accepted State’s concession that unrolling the bag was not justified by an officer-safety search; evidence must be suppressed; conviction reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (1993) (standard for reviewing trial court fact findings and legality of searches).
- State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475 (2015) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable).
- State v. Delfino, 281 Or App 725 (2016) (limits on searches incident to arrest: must be reasonable in time, scope, and intensity; purposes include officer safety).
- State v. Coop, 293 Or App 108 (2018) (officer-safety justification insufficient where officer felt an item but did not testify it was a weapon).
- State v. Musalf, 280 Or App 142 (2016) (feeling that an item is merely “hard” does not alone justify removing and inspecting it as a weapons search).