State v. Barker
Case # A147777
Full Text of Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153305.pdf
Defendant Barker was a passenger in a truck driven by her husband, which was stopped by the Oregon State Police on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. The Officer noticed a bottle of alcohol on the truck seat and many knives, lighters, and trash in the truck. The Officer ran the husband’s license and discovered that the husband was a “career criminal” who was on post-prison supervision. The conditions of his post-prison supervision prohibited him from drinking alcohol and having contact with Barker. The Officer received permission to search the truck and asked Barker to step out. Barker was at first reluctant but eventually got out of the truck and tucked her purse “tightly” under her arm. Barker did not leave, even though it was later established by the trial court that she was free to do so.
The Officer asked Barker if she had any weapons in her purse, to which Barker replied, “I don’t want you to search my purse.” The Officer noticed that Barker was grinding her teeth and clenching her jaw and had a “leathery look” and dilated pupils. The Officer knew from her training and experience that those were indicators of long-term drug use, as was the messy state of the truck.
For safety reasons, the Officer instructed Barker to put her purse on the hood of the patrol car. Barker reluctantly complied. The Officer could see into the open purse and saw a grey digital scale inside of it. The Officer ran a records check on Barker and discovered that she had a “drug history.” At that point, the Officer believed she had probable cause to arrest her for possession of a controlled substance and to search the purse for evidence of that crime. The Officer searched the purse and found a small baggie containing methamphetamine. Barker was charged with and ultimately convicted of Possession of Methamphetamine.
Barker now appeals the trial court’s decision to deny her motion to suppress evidence of the methamphetamine. She argues that the search violated Article I, Section 9 because the Officer lacked probable cause to arrest her.
To prove the Officer had probable cause for a warrantless arrest and search, the State has to prove two things: 1) that the Officer subjectively believed that a crime had been committed and, thus, that the purse was subject to search and (2) that the Officer’s belief was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
The Court of Appeals tackles each of the factors the Officer used to justify a search of the purse. The Court first determines that the mere fact that a defendant has a history of drug use does not provide an officer with probable cause to search or arrest. Thus, Barker’s “leathery look,” “drug history,” grinding teeth, clenching jaw, and messy truck provide little support for a conclusion that it was more likely than not that Barker was in current possession of a controlled substance. Moreover, the Court notes that evidence that a person is exhibiting signs of controlled substance intoxication combined with possession of a scale is still insufficient to give rise to probable cause to arrest that person for current possession of a controlled substance. Nor does Barker’s tightly clutching her purse and refusing a search give rise to probable cause of possession of a controlled substance. The Court explains that “[w]hen an individual seeks to protect an item and openly asserts his or her privacy rights, that behavior and assertion is neither innately shifty nor sinister—rather, it is constitutionally protected.” Therefore, under the totality of circumstances, the Officer’s belief that Barker more likely than not possessed a controlled substance was not objectively reasonable, and the search violated Article I, Section 9. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying Barker’s motion to suppress, and her conviction is reversed and remanded.