search under the automobile exception in Oregon

2020Moreover, “in order to search containers within a vehicle,” such as defendant’s purse, “an officer need not have probable cause to believe that a discrete container holds evidence of crime,” because “the proper scope of a search under the automobile exception is defined by the warrant that the officer could have obtained.” State v. Furrillo, 274 Or App 612, 616 , 362 P3d 273 (2015) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and emphasis omitted).

2020Moreover, “in order to search containers within a vehicle,” such as defendant’s purse, “an officer need not have probable cause to believe that a discrete container holds evidence of crime,” because “the proper scope of a search under the automobile exception is defined by the warrant that the officer could have obtained.” State v. Furrillo, 274 Or App 612, 616 , 362 P3d 273 (2015) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and emphasis omitted).

2020Even if a vehicle is “mobile,” the “automobile excep- tion does not justify a warrantless search in the absence of probable cause to search.” State v. Herrin, 323 Or 188, 194-95 , 915 P2d 953 (1996) (internal quotation marks omit- ted). “[T]he test for whether the police had probable cause to conduct a search under the automobile exception [is] * * * ‘whether a magistrate could issue a constitutionally sound search warrant based on the probable cause articulated by the officers.’ ” State v. Tovar, 256 Or App 1, 12 , 299 P3d 580 , rev den, 353 Or 868 (2013) (quoting State v. Brown, 301 Or 268,

2020Even if a vehicle is “mobile,” the “automobile excep- tion does not justify a warrantless search in the absence of probable cause to search.” State v. Herrin, 323 Or 188, 194-95 , 915 P2d 953 (1996) (internal quotation marks omit- ted). “[T]he test for whether the police had probable cause to conduct a search under the automobile exception [is] * * * ‘whether a magistrate could issue a constitutionally sound search warrant based on the probable cause articulated by the officers.’ ” State v. Tovar, 256 Or App 1, 12 , 299 P3d 580 , rev den, 353 Or 868 (2013) (quoting State v. Brown, 301 Or 268,

2015As the Supreme Court observed in Brown , the scope of a search under the automobile exception is defined by ‘“the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.’” 301 Or at 279 (quoting United State v. Ross, 456 US 798, 824 , 102 S Ct 2157 , 72 L Ed 2d 572 (1982)).

2015As the Supreme Court observed in Brown , the scope of a search under the automobile exception is defined by ‘“the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.’” 301 Or at 279 (quoting United State v. Ross, 456 US 798, 824 , 102 S Ct 2157 , 72 L Ed 2d 572 (1982)).

2011See, e.g., Meharry, 342 Or at 180 (“The search occurred shortly after [the officer] had observed the van in motion and had parked his police car behind her van.” (Emphasis added.)); Kock, 302 Or at 33 (“Searches of automobiles that haveytisf been lawfully stopped by police may be searched without a warrant * * * when police have probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband or crime evidence.” (Emphasis added.)); Brown, 301 Or at 277, 278 (describing an “immediate” search of an automobile); cf. State v. Zigler, 100 Or App 700, 704-05 , 788 P2d 484 (1990) (relying on a case

2011See, e.g., Meharry, 342 Or at 180 (“The search occurred shortly after [the officer] had observed the van in motion and had parked his police car behind her van.” (Emphasis added.)); Kock, 302 Or at 33 (“Searches of automobiles that haveytisf been lawfully stopped by police may be searched without a warrant * * * when police have probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband or crime evidence.” (Emphasis added.)); Brown, 301 Or at 277, 278 (describing an “immediate” search of an automobile); cf. State v. Zigler, 100 Or App 700, 704-05 , 788 P2d 484 (1990) (relying on a case

2002No exigent circumstances other than the mobility of the stopped vehicle need be demonstrated.” Id. at 276 . 5 The exigency created by a car’s mobility does not continue forever, and we accordingly held in Kruchek that, once the police impounded the defendant’s van, any exigency created by the van’s mobility was extinguished. 156 Or App at 624 .