State v. Wilcox

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court held that, under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, police may not search a closed, opaque container that does not disclose its contents while inventorying the property of a person taken into custody on a civil detoxification hold. The court concluded that compliance with an inventory policy does not alone establish constitutional reasonableness and reversed both the Court of Appeals decision and the circuit court judgment.

Holdings

1. Under Article I, section 9, an inventory search of an opaque closed container that does not announce its contents is unconstitutional when the owner is taken into custody pursuant to a civil detox hold, even if the container may reasonably hold valuables.
2. A statute or ordinance authorizing custody and a properly promulgated inventory policy that affords the executing officer no discretion are prerequisites to invoking the inventory exception, but they do not by themselves establish constitutional reasonableness.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Article I, section 9, permits police, pursuant to an inventory policy, to open and search an opaque closed container that does not announce its contents when the container is possessed by a person taken into custody on a civil detox hold.
2. Whether compliance with a properly adopted, nondiscretionary inventory policy is sufficient by itself to establish that such an inventory search is constitutionally reasonable.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded