State v. Sunderman, 467 P.3d 52

Consolidated appeal of two convictions: 15CR44342 (unlawful possession) and 15CR50447 (unlawful delivery and possession). Defendant entered conditional guilty pleas after suppression motions were denied.
The State conceded error as to 15CR44342; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded that case without further discussion.
Facts relevant to 15CR50447: defendant was stopped for failing to signal; an officer at the passenger side saw two clear, unused pipes in the open glove box that he identified as meth pipes based on training.
The officer asked for consent to search the car (without mentioning the pipes); he later testified defendant consented to a car search but could not recall whether she consented to a search of her purse. Defendant testified she consented to a car search but expressly refused consent to search her purse, which she placed on the hood.
Methamphetamine was located inside a wallet in the purse. The trial court concluded consent to search the car included consent to search the purse. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the State failed to prove consent to the purse search and that the automobile exception did not supply probable cause to search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant consented to a warrantless search of her purse	State: defendant consented to a search of the car and that consent encompassed the purse	Defendant: she expressly refused consent to search the purse after removing it from the car	Held: State failed to prove by a preponderance that defendant consented to a search of her purse; reversal required
Whether the automobile exception justified searching the purse (probable cause)	State: car was "mobile" and officer had probable cause based on pipes, training/experience, and community reports	Defendant: pipes alone and stale, vague community reports did not establish probable cause to believe methamphetamine was in the car	Held: vehicle mobility not disputed (Bliss) but facts here did not supply probable cause; automobile exception did not justify the purse search

State v. Davis, 295 Or 227 (1983) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable absent a recognized exception)
State v. Blair, 361 Or 527 (2017) (scope of consent determined by totality of circumstances and the defendant’s manifested intent)
State v. Bliss, 363 Or 426 (2018) (vehicle is "mobile" for automobile exception when lawfully stopped for a traffic violation)
State v. Foster, 350 Or 161 (2011) (probable cause analysis asks whether a magistrate could issue a constitutionally sound warrant based on the officer’s facts)
State v. Schmitz, 299 Or App 170 (2019) (training and experience alone do not supply the specific and articulable facts required for reasonable suspicion/current possession)
State v. Oller, 277 Or App 529 (2016) (observation of paraphernalia alone is insufficient to infer current possession of drugs)
State v. Furrillo, 274 Or App 612 (2015) (containers within a vehicle are searchable under the automobile exception only if the vehicle itself reasonably is expected to contain contraband)