- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 07-14-2021
- Case #: A171064
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeVore, P.J. for the Court; DeHoog, J.; & Mooney, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a conviction of methamphetamine possession pursuant to a conditional guilty plea. On appeal, Defendant, who was on transitional leave from the Department of Corrections (DOC), assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the methamphetamine discovered during a consent search of his automobile. On appeal, Defendant argued that his supervising officer did not have "reasonable grounds" to believe that he had violated the terms of his release and, therefore, could not request consent to search his vehicle. In response, the State argued that Defendant's prior drug convictions, recently admitted drug use, and association with a "potential crime associate" provided reasonable grounds to request Defendant's consent. A defendant's history of drug possession, acknowledgment of recent drug use, and association with a potential criminal associate are not sufficiently specific so as to give rise to reasonable grounds to request the defendant's consent to search their vehicle. State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 179, 389 P3d 1121 (2017). The Court held that the three aforementioned factors were not sufficiently articulable to give rise to a reasonable belief that Defendant possessed methamphetamine at the time of the stop. Reversed and remanded.