State v. Quigley
Case # A154098
Full Text of Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154098.pdf
Defendant Quigley was pulled over by a Police Officer for not properly wearing a seatbelt while driving. Quigley did not have her license, registration, or insurance information, and she admitted that her insurance had expired and that she was on probation. Based on this information, the Officer decided to impound and inventory the car. Quigley got out of the vehicle when asked, but she declined when the Officer asked for consent to search her purse “for weapons or drugs.” However, the Officer took the purse from Quigley after he saw a glimpse of a box cutter in it. He told Quigley that she would “have to separate herself from the purse” because he did not know if there were weapons in it.
The Officer called Quigley’s Probation Officer and, with the Probation Officer still on the phone, Quigley ultimately admitted that she had some marijuana in her purse. The Probation Officer then asked the Police Officer to “invoke the search condition of [Quigley’s] probation,” which required her to either consent to a search or decline and violate her probation. Faced with this choice, Quigley consented, and the Officer found a methamphetamine pipe, residue, and marijuana. Quigley was convicted of Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine.
On appeal, Quigley argues that her consent to search her purse was the product of an unlawful extension of the stop and thus violated Article I, Section 9. The State concedes that the stop was unlawfully extended because, after the time it should have taken to have been cited, Quigley should have been free to leave. However, the State argues that the evidence would have been inevitably found in a lawful search pursuant to the terms of Quigley’s probation.
The Court of Appeals notes that, to prevail on its inevitable discovery argument, the State has to prove that the Officer would have sought Quigley’s consent to search her purse and Quigley would have granted it without the unlawfully extended stop. Because no evidence supports this argument, the search amounted to an unconstitutional exploitation. Accordingly, Quigley’s judgment is reversed and remanded.