State v. Peek, 485 P.3d 292

Late-night motorcycle crash on the I-205 bike path; EMTs removed Peek’s leather jacket and transported him to the hospital.
Jacket and other debris obstructed the public bike path; Officer Byrd moved the jacket to a concrete Jersey barrier to clear the path and to preserve the jacket for the injured rider.
While moving and setting the jacket down, Byrd noticed it was heavier on one side and heard a metallic thud; the jacket’s front pocket was open.
Byrd shone a flashlight into the open pocket and observed the handle and slide of a handgun; he removed and unloaded the loaded gun.
Peek was charged (including felon in possession); he moved to suppress the gun evidence alleging an unlawful seizure (when Byrd picked up the jacket) and an unlawful search (when Byrd used the flashlight). The trial court denied suppression; Peek appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Byrd’s act of picking up/moving the jacket a “seizure” under Article I, § 9?	State: Moving items from a public thoroughfare is permissible and did not significantly interfere with property interests.	Peek: Picking up the jacket was a warrantless seizure of his property.	Court: Not a seizure — moving obstructive property on a public path (owner absent) does not significantly interfere with possessory interests.
Did shining a flashlight into the open pocket constitute a “search”?	State: Flashlight only revealed what would be visible in daylight (plain view), so no search.	Peek: Using the flashlight was an investigatory search requiring constitutional justification.	Court: Not a search — evidence supports that the gun would have been visible without the flashlight.
If a seizure occurred when the jacket was moved, was it justified as incident to arrest?	State: Any seizure was reasonable as incident to Peek’s arrest for DUII.	Peek: The seizure was not justified and thus unconstitutional.	Court: In the alternative, any seizure was permissible incident to arrest (trial court’s alternative ruling).

State v. Edwards, 304 Or App 293 (defining a property "seizure" as a significant interference with possessory or ownership interests)
State v. Fulmer, 366 Or 224 (same constitutional framework for property seizures)
State v. Sholedice/Smith, 364 Or 146 (moving obstructive property to perform a duty did not significantly interfere with ownership interest)
State v. Faulkner, 102 Or App 417 (use of illumination that only reveals what daylight would show does not constitute a search)
State v. Reed, 169 Or App 456 (flashlight use can be a search if it reveals what would not be visible in daylight)
State v. Goldberg, 309 Or App 660 (officer conduct may exceed social norms and implied consent, distinguishing permissible inspection from a search)
State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (standard of appellate review for trial court factual findings)