Background
A jury convicted Sergio Galvez of felon in possession of a weapon under ORS 166.270 and unlawful possession of methamphetamine under ORS 475.894. He appealed from the resulting judgment entered by the Lane County Circuit Court.
Galvez challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search incident to his arrest. Relying on State v. McCarthy, he argued that the state had to establish an actual exigency before conducting the search and had failed to do so.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. It concluded that Galvez’s argument was foreclosed by State v. Krause, which permits a search incident to arrest for evidence of the crime of arrest even after the arrested person has been removed from the immediate search area, provided that the evidence reasonably could be found there and the search is otherwise reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.
Galvez contended that Krause was wrongly decided and no longer controlled after McCarthy. The court explained that it had already considered and rejected that contention in State v. Stevens and had confirmed that Krause remains controlling.
Key Takeaways
- Oregon law does not require proof of an actual exigency for every evidentiary search incident to arrest.
- A search may extend to an area from which the arrested person has been removed when evidence of the arrest offense reasonably could be found there and the search is reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.
- The court adhered to Stevens and Krause, rejecting the argument that McCarthy displaced Krause.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the Oregon Court of Appeals’ continued application of Krause to evidentiary searches incident to arrest. Defendants cannot obtain suppression merely by arguing that officers lacked an actual exigency after removing the arrested person from the search area.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.