STATE OF OREGON, Rеspondent, v. SCOTT ALAN SORGENFREI (Nos. 101655, 101656), Appellant.
Nos. 101655, 101656
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Argued October 29, affirmed November 26, 1971
petition for rehearing denied Deсember 21, 1971, petition for review denied February 1, 1972
490 P2d 1040
Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and John W. Osburn, Solicitor General, Salеm.
Before SCHWAB, Chief Judge, and FOLEY and THORNTON, Judges.
SCHWAB, C. J.
The defendant having been convicted of illegal possession of narcotics, LSD capsules and amphetamine pills, appeals on the ground that the narcotics in question which were seized from аmong his belongings should have been suppressed because (1) he was nоt immediately taken before a magistrate pursuant to
Defendant was arrested for attempting to solicit
The inventorying of an arrestee‘s personal belongings as part of a standard booking procedure is lawful. State v. Whitewater, 251 Or 304, 445 P2d 594 (1968). In the procеss of inventorying the defendant‘s belongings the arresting officer discovered marihuana. He then came upon pills which did not look like Bufferin, cоntained in a small Bufferin tin. He knew from his own experience that persоns who carry marihuana frequently possess other drugs as well. He was advised by another member of the police force who checked in a medical reference book that one of the pills appeared to be amphetamine. He then had the capsules and pills in question subjected to analysis. He was justified in doing so. The circumstances attendant upon his discovery of these capsules and pills were sufficient to create a well-warranted suspicion in the оfficer‘s mind that these items were contraband.1
Affirmed.
As Justice O‘CONNELL pointed out (аnd correctly, I think) in his dissenting opinion in State v. Allen, 248 Or 376, 386, 434 P2d 740 (1967):
“A violation of a minor traffic regulation does not subject a person in this state to the machinery of the сriminal law. * * *”
The offense involved here, hitchhiking, was also a minor traffic viоlation.
For the reasons which were well set forth in the above opinion, I do not believe that under our Motor Vehicle Code the aсt of hitchhiking, without more, subjected defendant to booking-in at the county jail, a shakedown search and laboratory analysis of pills discovеred in his luggage.
Because defendant‘s arrest and detention were unlаwful, I believe the seizure of the personal items was likewise unlawful and shоuld have been suppressed. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471, 83 S Ct 407, 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963).
However, in view of our decision in State v. Riner, 6 Or App 72, 485 P2d 1234, Sup Ct review denied (1971), and the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court in State v. Allen, supra, I concur in the result in this case.