State v. Soprych

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession. Assigning error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the controlled substances, Defendant argued the controlled substances were obtained during a warrantless search of his bedroom. Although Defendant had given officers permission to check his bedroom for weapons, he argued that he did not consent to a search of his locked safe where the controlled substances were located. The State argued that Defendant consented to the search because by allowing them into his bedroom he had given consent to look wherever guns might be located, including the safe. Whether a defendant consents to a warrantless search turns on what the defendant intended to authorize police to search. State v. Cross, 316 Or. App. 506, 512-13 (2021); See also, State v. Blair, 361 Or. 527 (2017). The Court reasoned that officers had received consent to "check" Defendant's house for weapons, but they did not receive consent to "search," which suggests a more intrusive inspection that would allow opening a locked safe. It could not be inferred that Defendant consented to a warrantless search of his locked safe; therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence. REVERSED and REMANDED.