State v. Musalf

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 08-03-2016
  • Case #: A154499
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Wilson, S.J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Egan, J.

Where a criminal defendant gives limited consent to a search, a police officer violates his right against unreasonable search and seizure under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, if the police officer's search extends outside that limited consent. A police officer must make a particularized explanation as to the nature of a threat to his safety in order for a warrantless search to comport with the officer safety exception of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.

Defendant appealed conviction of unlawful possession of a Schedule I controlled substance. He argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered in a warrantless search of his pocket. Specifically, he argued that the search of his pocket was outside the scope of the consent he granted to a patdown search. The Court found that Defendant consented to a limited patdown search because the Defendant only explicitly consented to a search of the outside of his clothing, and made an express distinction between the search to which he consented and a search to which he would have been subject while under arrest. The Court therefore held that a search of the inside of Defendant’s pocket was not consensual, and, moreover, there were no officer safety grounds with which to make the search legitimate, because the police officer lacked a particularized explanation as to why feeling a hard container inside Defendant’s pocket would make him fear for his safety. Therefore, the Court held Defendant's motion to suppress should have been granted. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search

Back to Top