Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Andrew Raymond KOLOSKI, Defendant–Appellant.
Defendant appeals his judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, in violation of ORS 475.894, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a police officer's search of his backpack and a small opaque container discovered in the backpack at the scene of his arrest.1 In particular, defendant argues that the arresting officer searched the container without a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement and, therefore, violated his rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The state contends that the evidence was admissible because it would have been inevitably discovered under the Lane County Sheriff's Office inventory booking policy, and that that inventory booking policy is constitutional because such a policy is necessary to prevent dangerous chemicals or explosive devices from entering the jail's storage facilities. Our recent decision in State v. Davis, 262 Or.App. 555, 325 P3d 790 (2014), which held that a version of the Lane County inventory booking policy virtually identical to the one at issue here was constitutionally deficient, is dispositive of the issue. Therefore, the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress was error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand his conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine and otherwise affirm.
Conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. Defendant does not challenge his convictions for resisting arrest, ORS 162.315, and interfering with a peace officer, ORS 162.147.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 201120378; A151079.
Decided: July 16, 2014
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)