State v. Stinstrom, 322 P.3d 1076

Defendant appeals a conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine (ORS 475.894).
The trial court denied a motion to suppress evidence obtained from seizing defendant’s backpack and from searching the backpack and its contents.
Officer McGuire seized the backpack at a park prior to arrest, then later retrieved and inventoried it at the jail.
The state argued the seizure was permissible to protect the police and city from liability and that inventories justified the search.
The court held the seizure unlawful under Article I, section 9 and excluded the resulting evidence, reversing and remanding.
On appeal, the state asserted abandonment or temporary disclaimer of interest theories, but the court declined to consider those theories on the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McGuire’s seizure of the backpack violated Article I, section 9.	State: seizure justified to avoid liability; inventory policy authorizes seizure.	Duncan: seizure not authorized by law and not within inventory exception.	Seizure violated Article I, section 9; evidence suppressed.
Whether the inventory policy supports the seizure and the subsequent inventory of the backpack.	State: inventory policy valid and used lawfully.	Duncan: inventory exception requires lawful possession and adherence to policy; seizure cannot be justified by inventory rules.	Inventory exception does not justify seizure; policy governs only examination after possession.
Whether abandonment or disclaimer of interest could sustain the seizure.	State: defendant abandoned or temporarily disclaimed interest, allowing seizure.	Record insufficient to evaluate abandonment; arguments not raised below; may affect outcome.	Abandonment/disclaimer arguments not considered on appeal; seizure still unlawful.

State v. Kennedy, 295 Or 260 (1983) (sets framework for state-law issues before federal ones (warrantless seizure))
State v. Davis, 295 Or 227 (1983) (inventory exception requires possession and proper administration)
State v. Atkinson, 298 Or 1 (1984) (inventory must be authorized and conducted without officer discretion)
State v. Willhite, 110 Or App 567 (1992) (administrative seizures require statutory authorization; limits of seizure authority)
State v. Komas, 170 Or App 468 (2000) (inventory policies govern examination, not seizure)
State v. Cook, 332 Or 601 (2001) (disclaimer of ownership not necessarily abandonment of privacy interests; impacts suppression analysis)