AGENDA BILL. Beaverton City Council Beaverton, Oregon

Transcription

1 AGENDA BILL Beaverton City Council Beaverton, Oregon SUBJECT: Required Revisions to Prisoner Personal FOR AGENDA OF: BILL NO: ] 2238 Property Inventory Ordinance Mayor's Approval: fh'-f.m P:[) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: CA's Office ~~ DATE SUBMITTED: CLEARANCES: CAO PROCEEDING: Presentation EXHIBITS: 1. State v. Taylor 2. Draft Ordinance to Amend Inventory Search Policy (Track Changes) BUDGET IMPACT EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $0 BUDGETED $0 REQUIRED $0 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Listen to the presentation and direct staff as to any matters to be addressed in the revised ordinance. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: On May 16' 2012, the Oregon Court of Appeals held, in State v. Taylor, that a Umatilla County prisoner inventory search policy requiring police to search all opaque containers found on or in the possession of a prisoner is unconstitutionally overbroad. A policy is overbroad when it is not sufficiently restricted to a lawful purpose. The City of Beaverton has a prisoner inventory search policy and the policy contains a provision similar to the provision struck down by the court in State v. Taylor. INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION: Following the announcement of the decision in State v. Taylor, legal staff circulated a memorandum to the Beaverton Police Department alerting them to the ruling and recommending changes to the current Beaverton Police Inventory Policy. The Beaverton City Attorney's Office has prepared an ordinance to address the challenge created by the ruling in State v. Taylor. The proposed changes will be reviewed in the course of this presentation. Agenda Bill No: 12238

2 State v. Taylor, 250 Or.App. 90 (2012) 279 P.3d Or.App. go Court ofappeals of Oregon. STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David Brian TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. CFHog0l87; A Argued and Submitted Feb. 28, I Decided May 16, Synopsis Background: Defendant was convicted, on conditional plea of guilty before the Circuit Court, Umatilla County, Daniel J. Hill, 1., of possession of methamphetamine. Defendant appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Sercombe, J., held that: [I] otherwise invalid warrantless search of contents of cigarette box found on defendant's person was not rendered valid under inevitable discovery doctrine; [2] jail inventory policy granted unconstitutional discretion to officer conducting inventory search; and I Opinion SERCOMBE, J. *92 Defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, ORS He appeals, assigning error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a closed container-a cigarette box-during a warrantless search ofhis person. The trial court concluded that, although the search was unlawful, the evidence was nevertheless **256 admissible because the police inevitably would have discovered it pursuant to a valid jail inventory policy. Defendant argues that the inventory policy at issue would not have permitted the search of his cigarette box and that, in any event, the policy is constitutionally infirm. We conclude that the inventory policy violates Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. I Accordingly, we reverse and remand. The relevant facts are undisputed. Defendant was arrested on suspicion ofdomestic assault. The arresting officer handcuffed defendant and searched his pockets for weapons. The officer found a cigarette box, which he seized and handed to a second officer. That officer opened the cigarette box and discovered what he suspected, and defendant admitted, was methamphetamine. [3] inventory search policy was unconstitutionally overbroad. Reversed and remanded. Attorneys and Law Firms **255 Eric Johansen, Senior Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Peter Gartlan, ChiefDefender, Office of Public Defense Services. Justice J. Riilera, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General. Before ORTEGA, Presiding Judge, and SERCOMBE, Judge, and EDMONDS, Senior Judge. Defendant was charged with possession ofa controlled substance. Before trial, he moved to suppress the evidence found during the warrantless search of the cigarette box, arguing that it had been obtained in violation of Article I, section 9. The state argued that the search was justified as a valid "search incident to arrest." Alternatively, the state argued that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered during an inventory of defendant's property at the Umatilla County Jail. The applicable inventory policy provided, in relevant part: "POLICY: It shall be the policy of the Umatilla County Jail (UCJ) to ensure that all arrestee/inmate personal property is received, inventoried, stored, and released *93 in a safe, secure and systematic manner, in accordance with the law. This policy ensures the safety of the facility through effective weapons and contraband contro\[ ] and establishes authority to conduct inventories of the personal '/fes1la',vnext 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

3 State v. Taylor, 250 Or.App. 90 (2012) 279 P.3d 254 possessions of arrestees during pre-booking, the booking process, or lodging at UCI. The purpose of this policy is to inventory the property ofthe arrestee to protect private property, reduce or prevent false claims for lost or stolen property, and protect people and property from any hazardous condition or instrument which may be with an arrestee's personal property. "DEFINITIONS: "Contraband: Any item which presents a safety and/or security concern to the UCI, staff, or arrestee shall be considered contraband. "Personal Property: Includes, but [is] not limited to, all clothing, jewelry, and money. H***** "PROCEDURE: "Processing and/or Lodging: When an arrestee is brought to the UCI for processing and/or lodging allpersonalproperty shall be inventoried. Property shall be searched to ensure no weapons, drugs, or contraband items are brought into the UCI and authorized property is properly stored. Any item which may cause concern for the safety and/or security ofthe UCI, staff, or arrestee/inmate shall be considered contraband and may be confiscated. "Property of Arrestee-Pre-Booking Process: Personal property from the arrestee's pockets! ] (money, wallet, etc.)[.] outer clothing, purses, jewelry, belts, or other items deemed appropriate shall be removed, inventoried, searched, and documented on the Property Receipt Form and safely stored. Officer and arrestee will sign the Property Receipt Form, noting the confiscation of property taken." (Numbering omitted; underscoring and boldface In original; emphasis added.) The trial court rejected the state's first argument but agreed that, in any event, the jail inventory policy would have authorized the search of the cigarette box. The court concluded that, *94 "[w]hile it might be better that the policy clearly state that closed containers will be examined for contraband or dangerous things or substances, the policy essentially **257 states such, and is constitutional and eliminates any arguable discretion that the corrections officers could have in inventorying and logging an inmate's property. The evidence found, the methamphetamine in the cigarette packet, otherwise obtained in violation of a defendant's rights under Article I, section 9, are admissible as the state has demonstrated * * * that police would have used certain proper and predictable investigatory procedures * * * that would inevitably have resulted in discovery of the evidence at issue." Defendant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, defendant argues that the inventory policy would not have authorized a search of his cigarette box and that, if it did, the policy would not meet the constitutional requirements set forth in State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 688 P.2d 832 (1984). As to the latter argument, defendant contends that the policy does not eliminate officer discretion about which containers to search and, in effect, allows an officer to indiscriminately rummage through an arrestee's property. Furthermore, to the extent that the policy explicitly or implicitly authorizes searching closed containers for dangerous property, such as "weapons, drugs, or contraband items," defendant argues that the policy goes beyond the permissible purposes of an inventory under Atkinson. The state responds that the policy requires a booking officer to "search" all personal property for weapons, drugs, and contraband. Thus, in the state's view, an officer has no discretion regarding what property to search-the officer must search all personal property, including closed containers, that "he or she reasonably believes contains weapons, drugs, or contraband items." The state argues that that policy "is not overly broad in scope because [it] is limited to property that could reasonably contain weapons, drugs, and contraband items. * * * [T]he scope is rationally related to the purpose ofkeeping the jail facility safe." II] 12] *95 Under Article I, section 9, a warrantless search is per se unreasonable unless it is conducted pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant \Vesll,;ly,,'Next 2012 Thomson Reuters, i'jo claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

4 State v. Taylor, 250 Or.App. 90 (2012) 279 P.3d 254 requirement. State v. Connally, 339 Or. 583, 587, 125 P.3d 1254 (2005). Here, there is no contention that a "recognized exception" justified the warrantless search of defendant's cigarette box at the time of his arrest. 2 Rather, the only issue presented is whether the evidence obtained as a result of that unlawful search inevitably would have been discovered, absent the unlawful police conduct, pursuant to a valid jail inventory policy. See State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7, 25, 115 P.3d 908 (2005) (state may establish that illegally obtained evidence is admissible by proving that "the police inevitably would have obtained the disputed evidence through lawful procedures even without the violation of the defendant's rights under Article I, section 9"). For the state to prevail on an inevitable discovery theory, it must establish, "by a preponderance of the evidence: (I) that certain proper and predictable investigatory procedures would have been utilized in the instant case, and (2) that those procedures inevitably would have resulted in the discovery ofthe evidence in question." State v. Miller, 300 Or. 203, 226, 709 P.2d 225 (1985), cert. den., 475 U.S. 1141, 106 S.Ct. 1793, 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986). I3J In this case, there was evidence that, had the police not seized and searched defendant's cigarette box following his arrest, the cigarette box would have been transported with him to jail and subjected to the jail's inventory procedures. Nonetheless, the state failed to show that those procedures would have been "proper and predictable," because the Umatilla County Jail inventory policy authorizing those procedures is unconstitutional. 14J [5) The purpose of an inventory is to itemize property that lawfully comes into the administrative custody ofthe police. Atkinson, 298 Or. at 8, 688 P.2d 832; State v. Guerrero, 214 Or.App. 14, 18, 162 P.3d 1048 (2007). That situation most commonly arises when police impound an automobile, see **258 Atkinson, 298 Or. I, 688 P.2d 832 (automobile inventory), or when a person is being booked into a custodial facility, see Guerrero, 214 Or.App. 14, 162 P.3d 1048 *96 (jail inventory); State v. Perry, 298 Or. 21,688 P.2d 827 (1984) (civil detoxification hold). "The police need to determine the nature of the property that they are holding for three principal reasons: (I) protection of the person's property while it is in police custody; (2) reduction or elimination offalse claims against the police for lost property; and (3) protection against possible injury from impounded but uninventoried property. Atkinson, 298 Or. at 7-8 [688 P.2d 832J. None of those purposes involves searching for evidence of a crime." Guerrero, 214 Or.App. at 18, 162 P.3d Importantly, reliance on the third justification for an inventory-the possible danger to police or others from impounded but uninventoried property-"must have a concrete basis in specific circumstances', it may not simply be assumed as a basis of a general precautionary practice. " Atkinson, 298 Or. at 8, 688 P.2d 832 (emphasis added); see id. at 7-8, 688 P.2d 832 (suggesting that an inventory for the safety of police would be permissible where, for instance, the owner of an impounded vehicle is affiliated with a group suspected of bombing). [6J [7J 18J In addition, Atkinson identified certain constitutional limitations on police inventories. As relevant here, an inventory "must be conducted pursuant to a properly authorized administrative program, designed and systematically administered so that the inventory involves no exercise of discretion by the law enforcement person directing or taking the inventory." [d. at 10, 688 P.2d 832. Moreover the scope of the inventory must be limited so tha; objects are "scrutinized only to the extent necessary to complete the inventory." ld. Consistently with that principle, we have since held that, "as a general rule, an inventory policy cannot authorize the police to open closed containers; in the classic example, the police must inventory a closed fishing tackle box as 'one fishing tackle box.' " Guerrero, 214 Or.App. at 18, 162 P.3d 1048 (citations and some internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Keady, 236 Or.App. 530, 533,237 P.3d 885 (2010) ("Generally, police officers cannot open closed, opaque containers to inventory their contents."). However, we have recognized an exception to that general rule where an inventory policy requires an officer to inventory items of value. 'N;::Sll;".vNext 2012 Thomson Reuters. No ~Iaim to original U.S. Gover"-.,-n-e-n-t-W-o-rk-s

5 State v. Taylor, 250 Or.App. 90 (2012) 279 P.3d 254 In that circumstance, we have detennined that the policy implicitly requires an officer to *97 open containers-such as wallets, purses, and fanny packs -that are uniquely designed or objectively likely to hold valuables, and that such a policy is constitutional. See Guerrero, 214 Or.App. at 19-21, 162 P.3d 1048 (discussing cases). We have not extended that exception to containers that are objectively likely to contain weapons, drugs, or other contraband. 3 [9] Defendant contends that the Umatilla County Jail inventory policy is invalid to the extent that it authorizes the inspection of property-particularly the interior of closed containers-for the purpose of finding weapons, drugs, or other contraband. In other words, defendant questions whether security or safety concerns can validly justify a jail inventory-a procedure in which most property, including closed containers, will be confiscated and stored in a place inaccessible to the arrestee. We need not decide that question in this case. 4 Even assuming that a jail inventory policy could constitutionally authorize the opening of containers for the purpose of finding dangerous contraband, the inventory policy in this case is, in any event, unconstitutional. **259 The policy is silent regarding closed containers. However, it provides that property "shall be searched to ensure no weapons, drugs, or contraband items are brought into the UCI." It also provides that "[p]ersonal property from *98 the arrestee's pockets* * * or other items deemed appropriate shall be removed, inventoried, searched, and documented." The state argues that both of those provisions explicitly require an officer to "search," and therefore implicitly require him or her to open and inventory, the contents ofall containers that the officer reasonably believes contain contraband, which would include defendant's cigarette box. According to the state, that requirement eliminates officer discretion and is sufficiently related to the purpose of keeping the jail facility safe. We disagree. The policy is not, in fact, limited to opening only those containers that are objectively likely to contain contraband. See Guerrero, 2140r.App. at 19, 162 P.3d 1048 (stating general rule that "police must inventory property by its outward appearance"). Instead, the policy requires an officer to search property that he or she "deem[s] appropriate," without regard to whether that search will further the security of the facility. Rather than confining police discretion to the opening of containers uniquely designed or objectively likely to contain contraband, the policy gives wide latitude to an implementing officer to decide which closed containers to look inside and what degree of scrutiny to apply to any given piece of property. Indeed, by its very tenns, it authorizes not just an itemization of property but a "search," inviting officers to engage in a probable cause inquiry that is appropriate in the investigation of a crime but not in the context of an inventory. That grant of discretion is improper and renders the policy invalid. See, e.g., State v. Willhite, 110 Or.App. 567, 574, 824 P.2d 419 (1992) (policy that was so general that officers could look anywhere entailed "precisely the kind of individual discretion" that an inventory is supposed to preclude); State v. Eldridge, 207 Or.App. 337, 142 P.3d 82 (2006) (similar). [10] In the same vein, the policy is defective because it contains no complete and meaningful limitation on the scope of the inventory. It effectively authorizes a search of all property, including any closed container, regardless of what the container is objectively likely to hold. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 227 Or.App. 453, 457,206 P.3d 269 (2009) ("An inventory policy that requires police to open all closed containers, regardless of whether they are likely to contain valuables, is overbroad."); *99 State v. Kay, 227 Or.App. 359, 206 P.3d 208 (2009) (inventory policy pennitting an officer to open all closed containers was too broad to satisfy constitutional constraints). Thus, the policy goes beyond the constitutional limitations of Article I, section 9, and, therefore, is invalid. The evidence should have been suppressed. Reversed and remanded. Parallel Citations 279 P.3d 254 Footnotes ',\'2stl?vvNext 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4

6 State v. Taylor, 250 Or.App. 90 (2012) 279 P.3d Article I, section 9, provides: "No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized." 2 The state does not contend on appeal that the search was justified as a valid "search incident to arrest." 3 Indeed, such an exception might swallow the limitations on inventories. 4 We recognize that security may be a valid justification for administrative searches in contexts where property would otherwise remain accessible to persons entering the secure portion ofa facility. See, e.g., State v. Coleman, 196 Or.App. 125, 127, 100 P.3d 1085 (2004), rev. den., 338 Or. 16, 107 P.3d 26 (2005) (limited search for safety of detainees in "controlled waiting room" of police station); Smith v. Washington County, 180 Or.App. 505, 43 P.3d 1171, rev. den Or. 491,52 P.3d 1056 (2002) (courthouse security screening); see also Us. v. McCarty, 648 F.3d 820 (9th Cir.2011) (airport screening searches are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution where properly limited in extent and intensity). Of course, those searches must still be reasonable in relation to their purpose. Weber v. Oakridge School District 76, 184 Or.App. 415, 437, 56 P.3d 504 (2002), rev. den., 335 Or. 422, 69 P.3d 1233 (2003). In the jail inventory context, it is not apparent how the purpose of safety would be served by allowing officers to open closed, opaque containers to look for contraband where those containers can be seized, inventoried by their outward appearance, and placed securely in storage. See State v. Lippert, 317 Or. 397, 404, 856 P.2d 634 (1993) (in the context of civil detoxification holds, "this court has held that Article I, section 9, * * * is violated when officers conduct a search ofclosed, opaque containers * * * that do not announce their contents and that are not going to be placed * * * into the secured portion of the detoxification facility"). End of Document 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works '--_.._-- '/,J25tl3',vNext 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5

7 Chapter 2.08 INVENTORY OF PRISONER PERSONAL PROPERTY Sections: Legislative Findings Definitions Purpose Duty to Inspect Prisoner Property Preliminary Safety Inspection Timing of Inspection Manner of Inspection Identification and Safekeeping of Property Return of Property upon Release or Transfer Distribution of Property Receipts Adoption of Administrative Policies or Procedures. I DRAFT Legislative Findings. The City Council observes, among other reasons, that the findings and policies listed below support an inventory of prisoner personal property: A. Beaverton Police Officers are often the first persons in contact with suspects who are taken into custody, bringing such persons physically into the police station. B. Bringing a prisoner into the police department premises is a vehicle for introducing valuable pieces of property or, alternatively, dangerous property found on a person, into the police department premises. C. Police officers currently face the risk that suspects in custody may bear or carry dangerous items such as syringes, weapons, objects which could be used as a weapon, or toxic or flammable substances, on their persons or otherwise accessible. An inventory separates a person from dangerous items. D. An inventory of valuable and dangerous items provides mutual protection, accountability and safeguards when such items are brought into the police department. [BC , added by Ordinance No. 4377,12/5/05; amended by Ordinance No. 4385, 3/20106] Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance, the following mean: Attached property - Personal property such as jewelry or other decorative personal objects in the manner of body art or body piercing jewelry, but not including containers, to which all of the following apply: A. The item appears reasonably securely fastened to or through the person's skin; and B. The item is neither valuable nor dangerous personal property. Closed container - A container the contents of which are not exposed to view. Includes, but is not limited to, a wallet, backpack, bedroll, fanny pack, purse, suitcase, or food or drink canister. Container - An item designed to hold other things, or an item which is used or may be used to actually hold other things. The term includes both open and closed containers. Some types of containers may be located within other containers.

8 Dangerous personal property - Any item of personal property that under the circumstances in which it is possessed is readily capable of causing physical injury, property damage, or providing a means of escape, including but not limited to weapons and toxic, flammable or explosive substances. Officer - A police officer employed by the City of Beaverton or acting on behalf of the City of Beaverton. Open container - A container that is unsecured or incompletely secured such that the container's contents are exposed to view, generally including, but not limited to, a sack, bag or folder. Personal property - Every kind of property except land, tenements and fixtures. Pocket - An external or internal enclosure located on or within an item of clothing or other piece of property, in which items may be located or stored. Police station - The secure portion of the Beaverton City Hall building set aside for police use which contains the police department temporary holding facility area. Prisoner - A person under lawful custodial arrest or detention, including, but not limited to, a person taken into custody for violation of law or upon a mental health hold pursuant to ORS Chapter 426, including ORS ; a person taken into custody for treatment of intoxication pursuant to ORS Chapter 430, including ORS ; and a person taken into protective custody pursuant to ORS Chapter 419B, including ORS 419B.150. The term does not include a person issued a criminal citation and released under authority of ORS to ORS unless the citation and release occurs upon premises of the Beaverton Police Station. Torso - The trunk of the body; the body exclusive of the head, arms and legs. Treatment facility - Includes outpatient facilities, inpatient facilities and such other facilities as the Oregon Department of Human Services determines suitable, any of which may provide diagnosis and evaluation, medical care, detoxification, social services or rehabilitation for alcoholics or drug-dependent persons and which operate in the form of a general hospital, a state hospital, a foster home, a hostel, a clinic or other suitable form approved by the Oregon Department of Human Services. Valuable personal property - Any cash, check, money order or other negotiable instrument, in any amount; any earring, necklace, ring, watch, bracelet or other similar item of jewelry which is removed from the person's body or from a container or other piece of the person's property, regardless of the item's apparent value; and any other item of personal property that the person examining the item reasonably believes has a fair market value of $500 or more. Attached property is not valuable personal property. [BC , added by Ordinance No. 4377, 12/5/05; amended by Ordinance No. 4385, 3/20/06] Purpose. The inspection and inventory of prisoner property pursuant to this ordinance is intended to: A. Protect a prisoner's property while in custody of the City; B. Protect the City, its employees and agents against claims or disputes over lost, stolen or damaged property; and C. Protect prisoners, City employees and others in the area of a prisoner or a prisoner's property from potential danger. 7

9 D. This ordinance is not intended to diminish any law enforcement activities presently authorized under law. [BC , added by Ordinance No. 4377,12/5/05; amended by Ordinance No. 4385, 3/20/06] Duty to Inspect Prisoner Property. A. An officer shall inspect the personal property of every prisoner as provided in this ordinanc e. B. This ordinance shall also apply when a person in the custody of an officer is transported directly to another facility such as a jail, yet whose property is undeliverable to that facility and instead is left with the Beaverton Police. [BC , added by Ordinance No. 4377, 12/5105; amended by Ordinance No. 4385, 3/20/06] Preliminary Safety Inspection. The purpose of this section is to identify readily-apparent and highly dangerous substances which would normally be brought into the police station and discovered in an inventory upon those premises, but which should not be brought into the Beaverton City Hall building due to the extreme and obvious danger they present to persons and property. This section applies to certain containers listed below in subsection (A) of this section which are inevitably destined for arrival at the police station. This section shall only be triggered when a person is taken into custody by an officer, the officer knows he or she will be transporting the person to the police station (or ifto another facility, the officer retains custody of containers that the other facility has rejected), and the officer knows he or she will be conducting the manner of inspection set forth in BC A. The officer shall visually note any purse, sack, backpack, fanny pack, suitcase, or other container designed for, or actually used for, the purpose of carrying personal items, when it is inevitable that the container will be arriving at the police station. B. Before entering the police station the officer shall open such a container and conduct a preliminary safety inspection, which is defined as a cursory visual/smell/listen and manual inspection designed to identify the follo'.\'ing subset of dangerous of the personal property: 1. Explosive devices such as bombs, hand grenades or other similar military ordnance, plastic explosive, or incendiary explosive devices. 2. Toxic or unstable chemicals such as gasoline, nerve gas or similar chemical weapons, or substances used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. 3. Biologic weapon substances, including material such as strains of anthrax, ebola, bubonic plague, or other biologic warfare agent. C. Property described in subsection (B) of this section which is discovered in a preliminary safety inspection shall be noted on the inventory form in the course of the identification of property required by BC The property shall be processed by a second officer according to existing orders or procedures of the Beaverton Police Department. D. The officer shall not remove any items of personal property from containers during the preliminary safety inspection other than the dangerous items listed in subsection (B) of this section. E. Closed containers which are opened pursuant to this section shall be immediately closed again after the preliminary safety inspection. [BC , added by Ordinance No. 4385, 3/20/06]

10 Timing of Inspection. Except for the preliminary safety inspection the inspection of a prisoner's property pursuant to this ordinance shall occur after the prisoner is within the police station and prior to the prisoner being released or transported to another law enforcement agency, correctional facility, or treatment facility. If exigent circumstances reasonably require that the inspection be delayed, the inspection shall occur as soon as practicable after the exigency has passed. [BC , added by Ordinance No. 4377,12/5/05; amended by Ordinance No. 4385, 3/20/06] Manner of Inspection. The inspection of prisoner property shall occur in the following manner: A. Unless otherwise authorized by law, the officer shall not remove the prisoner's blouse, skirt, dress, shirt, pants and/or underwear (including, but not limited to, underpants, T-shirt, bra, slip, nylons andlor pantyhose); provided, however, that if the prisoner is wearing more than one blouse, skirt, dress, shirt or pair of pants, the officer shall remove the outer blouse, skirt, dress, shirt or pair of pants, but shall not remove the blouse, skirt, dress, shirt or pair of pants worn closest to the flesh of the prisoner's torso. Unless otherwise authorized by law, if a prisoner is wearing an article of clothing not described in this subsection, the officer shall not remove the article of clothing if it is worn next to the skin of the prisoner's torso. B. The officer shall remove: 1. the prisoner's footwear, including the prisoner's socks; 2. the prisoner's headgear, including the prisoner's hat, cap, or helmet; and 3. the prisoner's coat, jacket, vest or other clothing not described in subsection (A) of this section that is found on or in possession of the prisoner. C. The officer shall remove the prisoner's accessories (including, but not limited to, any purses, backpacks, wallets, briefcases or fanny packs) that are found on or in possession of the prisoner. The officer shall not remove attached property. D. The officer shall inspect the waistband and empty the pockets of the clothing worn by the prisoner. The officer shall perform an external patting of the clothing remaining upon the prisoner. An officer of the same sex, if reasonably available, shall visually inspect under the clothing covering the prisoner's side and front abdominal area and back lumbar area above the prisoner's waist. E. The officer shall empty the pockets of clothing removed from the prisoner's body. F. Except for attached property, the officer shall remove all items of personal property from the prisoner's removed and remaining clothing. G. The officer shall remove from and inspect all items of personal property within any open container found on or in possession of the prisoner. H. Closed containers found on or in the possession of a prisoner shall not be opened absent other articulable facts. _and objects therein shall be scrutinized and may be removed to accommodate the inspection. I. The prisoner's footwear, including socks, may be returned to the prisoner after inspection, provided such return does not create an unreasonable risk of harm to the health or safety of the prisoner, the officer, or any other person, or the property of any of them, or the property of the City of Beaverton. [BC , added by Ordinance No. 4377, 12/5/05; amended by Ordinance No. 4385, 3/20/06] 9

11 Identification and Safekeeping of Property. As soon as is reasonably possible after the completion of an inspection of prisoner property, an officer shall: A. Segregate the valuable and dangerous property, but not attached property, identified during the inspection, from the prisoner's other possessions. B. Make a written list of all valuable and dangerous personal property found on or in the possession of the prisoner. The list shall not include attached property. C. Note the disposition of each piece of valuable or dangerous personal property, but not attached property, discovered during the inspection by recording who takes or keeps physical custody of each item so discovered. D. Take reasonable steps to safeguard personal property removed from the prisoner. [BC , added by Ordinance No. 4377, 12/5/05; amended by Ordinance No. 4385, 3/20/06] Return of Property upon Release or Transfer. Personal property kept safe under this ordinance, and not retained upon other grounds, shall be returned in accordance with the following provisions: A. When the prisoner is released from law enforcement custody, kept property shall be released to the person forthwith, or as soon as practicable after the inventory document is drafted. B. If a prisoner is transferred to another facility, such as a jail, hospital, or other law enforcement or care facility, the kept property and a copy of the inventory may be transferred to a responsible individual at the receiving facility, or retained by the City, whichever course seems most safe and expedient under the circumstances. In addition to the above, the officer shall observe any applicable department policies, procedures or practices then in effect. C. This ordinance shall not apply when persons are arrested, cited, and released at the scene of a crime. However, any property removed from a person during a stop, arrest or other detention, and which is not seized, should be timely returned to the person in conjunction with release. D. Property which, for whatever reason, is not returned by operation of the subsections above shall remain with the Police Department for no fewer than 90 days, during which time any policies, procedures or practices currently in effect for property shall be followed. [BC , added by Ordinance No. 4377, 12/5/05; amended by Ordinance No. 4385,3/20/06] Distribution of Property Receipts. The City shall maintain the original record of property and its disposition. A copy of such record shall be distributed as follows: A. To the prisoner or included with prisoner's property. B. To any person taken into custody to whom the officer must tender a copy pursuant to ORS [BC , added by Ordinance No. 4377, 12/5/05; amended by Ordinance No. 4385, 3/20/06] j[)

12 Adoption of Administrative Policies or Procedures. The Beaverton Police Department may adopt administrative procedures, rules or regulations, or establish forms to carry out this ordinance. [Be , added by Ordinance No. 4377, 12/5/05; amended by Ordinance No. 4385, 3/20106] - II