“It would be anomalous to conclude that the framers contemplated that a court, acting under the solemn obligation imposed by its oath of office, would be required to affirm by oath or affirmation the validity of its own records.”
How later courts described this case
- “It would be anomalous to conclude that the framers contemplated that a court, acting under the solemn obligation imposed by its oath of office, would be required to affirm by oath or affirmation the validity of its own records.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RIGGS, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur; however, I believe that there is another and, perhaps, better answer to defendant’s argument that, once the wallet was seized, it was no longer a threat and therefore the officer was not authorized to search it for weapons.
The Oregon constitutional provisions against unreasonable searches and seizures protect privacy and possessory interests from unreasonable government intrusions. Or Const, Art I, § 9; State v. Ainsworth, 310 Or 613 , 801 P2d 749 (1990). I believe that there are heightened privacy and property interests in wallets, because they are used to carry valuables and important personal papers and effects. Under the circumstances of this case, and in the light of those heightened interests, it would be a greater impairment of defendant’s rights to seize the wallet and deprive him of its possession for an indefinite period of time, rather than to inspect it briefly for weapons or means of escape and then return it to him promptly, if none were found.
I would hold that the search of defendant’s wallet was the least intrusive reasonable action that was necessary for the officer’s protection.