State v. Dickerson

I disagree with the majority’s analysis and conclusion that unfolding the pocketknife was a search that *197required probable cause and a warrant. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

The majority assumes that two warrantless searches occurred. The first search occurred when the police arrested defendant and conducted a pat-down or limited search for weapons. 135 Or App at 195. I agree with the majority that that search and the seizure of the pocketknife were justified by the need to protect the officers’ safety. I part company with the majority when it asserts that another search occurred when…