State v. Lambert

Majority - Garrett, J.

Yes, a warrantless seizure of a vehicle is unlawful when an officer subjectively believes it contains evidence of a crime and the state fails to prove the vehicle would have been towed regardless of that suspicion, because the "administrative seizure" exception does not apply under such circumstances. The court found that the warrantless tow of defendant's Jeep was illegal because the state failed to meet its burden of showing that the "administrative seizure" exception to the warrant requirement applied. Officer Parry explicitly testified that he believed the car contained criminal evidence, and the record lacked evidence that the vehicle was obstructing traffic or posing a hazard. The court emphasized that an officer's suspicion of criminal activity "can play no part" in an administrative seizure unless the state proves the property would have been seized for non-investigatory reasons anyway, distinguishing this case from precedent where such reasons were present. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress on this basis. However, the court did not determine whether the evidence found later would have been discovered independently of the illegal seizure, which requires further findings on remand. Yes, temporary tents regularly equipped and used for business operations can constitute a "building" for purposes of Oregon's burglary statute (ORS 164.215) even without physical modifications. The court concluded that the tents at the PWB facility were "adapted for carrying on business therein" within the meaning of ORS 164.205(1). While few physical modifications were made, Carollo employees made the tents suitable for use as a testing facility by bringing in large, heavy equipment, setting up a work bench, and regularly conducting tests inside for extended periods. The court affirmed that "changes or modifications" to make a structure suitable for a new use do not necessarily have to be physical. Thus, the court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal on the burglary charges. Separately, the court rejected defendant's argument that the information in the search warrant affidavit was "stale." Given the specialized nature of the stolen water-testing equipment, it was reasonable for the magistrate to infer that the items were not easily marketable and thus more likely than not to still be in the vehicle several months later. The observation of blankets covering items in the rear of the Jeep at the time of arrest further supported the inference that evidence might still be present. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress on the basis of staleness. The convictions on Counts 2 and 3 (August break-in) were vacated and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the evidence connecting defendant to that incident (the 4x4 decal match and pH pen) would have been discovered independently of the illegal seizure. The conviction on Count 4 (October break-in) was affirmed.