Instead of convening in Salem as usual, the Oregon Supreme Court met at the University’s School of Law on Tuesday to hear arguments on the constitutionality of a search-and-seizure case involving drug paraphernalia.
The annual event, sponsored by the law school’s Legal Research and Writing Program, included a visit by the state Supreme Court to give law students and the Eugene community the opportunity to see the state’s highest court in action.
Chief Justice Wallace Carson, along with six other Oregon justices, listened to the case of Jeffrey Cook, who was arrested Sept. 8, 1996 for drug possession. Cook was convicted, but his lawyers are contending that the arresting officers performed an illegal search. State lawyers, however, argue that Cook’s rights were never violated when he was arrested.
Following the court session, the justices answered audience questions about the state court process.
Members of the court argued whether or not officers violated Article 1, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, which prohibits police officers from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. Cook was arrested when two Eugene police officers responded to a report of people trying to break into parked vehicles. When the officers arrived on the scene, one noticed Cook in the parking lot sorting through the contents of a duffel bag. After Cook denied the bag belonged to him, the officers searched through it and found white powder, later determined to be a controlled substance. They also found a syringe, a knife and two spoons. Cook then admitted the bag was his and was charged with unlawful possession.
Dan Maloney, deputy public defender and one of Cook’s attorneys, said Cook did not give consent to the officers to search the bag, so it was unconstitutional for them to conduct the search without a warrant.
“A person does not have to accept their right of privacy in order to have the right,” Maloney said. “What you have here is a warrantless search based on reasonable suspicion.”
Jennifer Scott Lloyd, assistant attorney general, said that because Cook denied the bag was his, it was not an unconstitutional search.
“The officer searched the bag only after the defendant tried to separate himself from it,” she said.
Throughout both presentations, the justices interjected questions and comments to clarify the various statements from lawyers.
The justices, particularly Justice Paul DeMuniz, had several questions for Lloyd.
DeMuniz asked Lloyd what the constitutional significance was of Cook claiming the bag did not belong to him.
She said simply denying ownership of the bag was not enough to clear Cook, and if a person disclaims ownership, the police can conduct a search.
After hearing both sides, the justices took questions from the audience, and Justice Ted Kulongoski explained the process of deciding a case.
“What you see today is just the end result of a very large process to get this case here,” Kulongoski said.
He said for a case to reach the Oregon Supreme Court, a judge recommends the justices take a case. The justices then look over the case and vote on whether or not to hear it. He said three out of seven members must agree to take a case.
For Jason Guinasso, a first-year law student, this was his first time seeing the Oregon Supreme Court in action.
“It wasn’t as tense as I thought it would be,” he said. “It was a lot more of a collegial atmosphere.”
Guinasso said the case was highly technical, but he did have an opinion in the end.
“I kind of felt like the state had a clearer case,” he said. “It was easier to get my mind around the theories they were proposing.”