State v. Washington, 335 P.3d 877

This case involves a conflict in Oregon law on the permissible scope and intensity of a vehicle search incident to arrest for DUII under Article I, section 9.
State v. Brody held that a full search of the passenger compartment and closed containers exceeded permissible scope because DUII was a traffic offense.
Subsequent decisions in Burgholzer, Crampton, and Augard allowed opening certain closed compartments if evidence of DUII could reasonably be concealed there.
The court overruled Brody after Owens, holding that the scope depends on immediate control of the arrestee and whether the space could conceal evidence of the identified crime, not on whether the offense is a traffic offense.
In the case at hand, defendant was a passenger; the officer searched the center console where a gun was found, and the court held this search reasonable as it could have concealed evidence of DUII.
The opinion discusses standing and compares state and federal limitations, noting Gant does not control Oregon’s standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether opening the center console during the search incident to arrest complied with Article I, section 9.	Defendant: center console was outside the permissible scope.	State: open containers within reach could be searched.	Search was permissible under Oregon law.
Whether Brody’s rationale survives post-Owens.	Plaintiff maintains Brody governs scope by offense type.	State argues Owens governs standard.	Brody overruled; Owens governs scope.
Whether DUII permits searching closed containers in the passenger compartment incident to arrest.	Burgholzer/Crampton/Augard authorize such searches.	State asserts reflective limits apply.	Permissible if container could conceal DUII evidence and was in arrestee's immediate control.
Whether the search violated Fourth Amendment when applying Gant considerations.	Defendant argues Gant limits apply.	State acknowledges Gant similarities but cites Oregon rule.	Oregon law governs; Gant discussion noted but not dispositive.

State v. Brody, 69 Or App 469 (1984) (initial rule restricting scope of DUII searches in Oregon (tripwire for later overrule))
State v. Burgholzer, 185 Or App 254 (2002) (permissible to open closed compartments when evidence could be concealed)
State v. Crampton, 176 Or App 62 (2001) (containers opened if could conceal weapons or drugs)
State v. Augard, 122 Or App 485 (1993) (glove compartment search upheld for DUII context)
Owens, 302 Or 196 (1986) (established control-and-concealment standard for container searches)
State v. Hartley, 96 Or App 722 (1989) (scope and timing principles for searches incident to arrest)
State v. Hite, 198 Or App 1 (2005) (continues container- search framework within DUII context)
State v. Vaughn, 92 Or App 73 (1988) (timing and locality of search in relation to arrest)