State v. Winn
361 Or. 636
| Or. | 2017Background
- Defendant Winn brought a purse through Marion County Juvenile Court security; purses are x-rayed and may be hand-searched with consent per courthouse policy.
- Screener Spencer-Wold x-rayed Winn’s purse twice, observed images suggesting a compact and a spoon, and then asked, “May I please search your purse?” Winn consented.
- While hand-searching the purse in Winn’s presence, Spencer-Wold found and opened a small opaque compact and discovered a baggie of white powder later identified as methamphetamine; Winn was charged with unlawful possession.
- Winn moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrantless opening of the compact violated Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution; the trial court denied suppression and convicted her after a stipulated-facts trial.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding a reasonable person would not interpret an unqualified consent to a purse search as consent to open small closed containers absent circumstances indicating the officer sought items that could be hidden therein.
- The state sought review arguing that an unqualified consent to a general search should extend to opening unlocked containers found inside; the Supreme Court considered this alongside its decision in State v. Blair.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Winn's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unqualified consent to search a purse extends to opening closed containers inside it for Article I, §9 purposes | An unqualified affirmative to a general search request presumptively includes opening unlocked closed containers found inside (reasonable person would expect a thorough search) | A reasonable person would not infer consent to open small closed containers absent circumstances indicating the officer sought items that could be hidden inside (e.g., drugs) | The scope-of-consent inquiry is factual — what the defendant actually intended; the state’s default rule is rejected and the case is remanded because competing inferences exist and the trial court applied the wrong standard |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blair, 361 Or 527 (Or. 2017) (scope-of-consent is a factual inquiry into the defendant’s actual intent; rejected default rule that unqualified consent extends to all closed containers)
- State v. Delong, 275 Or App 295 (Or. Ct. App. 2015) (consent/scope-of-search precedent from Court of Appeals)
- State v. Helow, 171 Or App 236 (Or. Ct. App. 2000) (Court of Appeals decisions on consent scope)
- State v. Arroyo-Sotelo, 131 Or App 290 (Or. Ct. App. 1994) (Court of Appeals decisions on consent scope)