Groom V Oregon case Brief
Facts.
A police officer, Carroll, after the official DMV check on the license plates of the vehicle that he was following he was able to determine that its registered owner had an outstanding warrant for a drug offense. By the time he had the results of the official check the vehicle had turned down a side street and he located the vehicle was parked and two women were standing beside it on the sidewalk. He approached them for identification and the defendant eventually identified herself as the owner of the vehicle. An officer requested that a drug dog be sent to the scene. Before the drug dog arrived the officer advised the defendant was advised of her rights and told her that a drug dog had been called to the scene and, in response, she acknowledged that she had been the driver of the vehicle and that officers were likely to find drugs inside it. When the drug dog arrived, it alerted to the door of the vehicle when the door of the vehicle was opened it alerted to the defendant’s purse. Carroll opened the purse and inside found the drugs.
Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence resulting from a warrantless search of her vehicle and ht emotion was denied by the trial court which stated that the officers were lawfully on the scene and as the other items became unfolding, they had probable cause to bring the dog to sniff. The defendant was convicted and appealed. On appeal the defendant contends the denial the motion to suppress the evidence resulting from a warrantless search by trial court.
Questions presented.
Was it appropriate for the trial court to apply the automobile exception in this case?
Was it appropriate for the trial judges to deny the defendants motion to the suppress evidence from a warrantless search?
Should the conviction by the trial judges be upheld?
Holding
We conclude that the search was lawful under the automobile exception and up hold the decision of the decision of the trial court to deny the defendants motion to the suppress evidence from a warrantless search.
Rationale
The automobile exception to the warrant requirement created by the Oregon Supreme Court in Brown held that there is such an exception when the vehicle is mobile at the time it is stopped by police and there is a probable cause which exists for the search of the vehicle. Although the vehicle in this case was already parked a vehicle is ‘mobile’ for purposes of the automobile exception as long as it is operable and is inoperable when it is functionally disabled. Further, police can search a vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception even if, at the time the officer’s first focus on the vehicle, they have no suspicion of criminal activity but probable cause is developed later. Applicability of the automobile exception turns on the mobility of the vehicle when the police first encounter it. The vehicle in this case was mobile at the moment the police first focused his attention on it. Carroll following noticed and it when he was following it and ran a DMV check on its license plates. It is sufficient that probable cause was developed later when officers discovered the freshly deposited bindle and defendant conceded that there were probably drugs in the vehicle. Nothing happened between the time the officer first saw the vehicle and the time of the search that rendered the vehicle incapable of motion and there was no physical impediment to the vehicle. At the time probable cause to search the vehicle developed in this case, the vehicle was operable and not being impounded and accordingly the warrantless search in this case came within the automobile exception and suppression was not required.
