The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals in *State v. Wilcox*, a case examining whether police can search opaque containers during civil detox holds under Oregon's noncriminal custody statute.
The case centers on ORS 430.399, which permits police officers to take intoxicated persons into custody for noncriminal purposes to transport them to sobering or treatment facilities in what is commonly called a "civil detox hold." The legal question before the court was whether Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution allows the state to search an opaque closed container that does not reveal its contents when found in possession of someone being taken into custody on a civil detox hold.
Jason Thomas Wilcox was the defendant in the original Washington County Circuit Court case, which began in 2019 according to court records. The case proceeded through the appellate system, with the Court of Appeals initially ruling that police could search such containers based on existing case law precedent.
The Oregon Court of Appeals had concluded that the state could open an opaque container found during a civil detox hold, reasoning from its established case law on inventory searches. However, the Oregon Supreme Court disagreed with this analysis and reversed both the Court of Appeals decision and the original circuit court judgment.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Sept. 25, 2025, in an en banc proceeding, meaning all justices participated in the decision rather than a smaller panel. Justice James authored the opinion for the court, which was issued Nov. 25, 2025.
Joshua B. Crowther, a Deputy Public Defender with the Oregon Public Defense Commission in Salem, argued the case for Wilcox. Also contributing to the defense briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender of the Criminal Appellate Section. The state was represented by Assistant Attorney General Peenesh Shah, also from Salem, with support from Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Interim Deputy Attorney General Benjamin Gutman.
The case highlights the intersection between civil and criminal law enforcement powers. While ORS 430.399 authorizes police to take intoxicated individuals into custody, it does so for treatment purposes rather than criminal prosecution. This distinction becomes crucial when determining what search powers police possess during such encounters.
Civil detox holds represent a different category of police-citizen interaction than traditional arrests. When someone is arrested on criminal charges, police have well-established authority to conduct inventory searches of their possessions. However, when someone is taken into custody under the civil detox statute, the legal framework becomes more complex.
The Oregon Constitution's Article I, section 9 provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, similar to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The state constitutional provision often provides broader protections than federal law, and Oregon courts frequently interpret it more restrictively regarding government search powers.
The Supreme Court's reversal suggests that the justices found the Court of Appeals applied an overly broad interpretation of police search authority during civil detox situations. By reversing the decision, the court indicated that existing inventory search precedents may not automatically apply to noncriminal custody situations.
The court's decision to remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings, rather than dismissing it outright, suggests there may be additional factual or legal issues that need resolution at the trial level. This could involve questions about the specific circumstances of Wilcox's detention or the particular container that was searched.
The ruling has potential implications for how law enforcement handles civil detox situations statewide. Police departments may need to revise their policies regarding searches during noncriminal custody to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court's interpretation of constitutional protections.
The case also reflects ongoing tensions in criminal justice policy between public safety concerns and individual privacy rights. While civil detox holds serve important public health and safety functions by getting intoxicated individuals off the streets and into treatment, they also involve significant deprivations of liberty that trigger constitutional protections.
The decision comes as many jurisdictions nationwide are reevaluating how they handle substance abuse and mental health issues, often seeking alternatives to traditional criminal prosecution. Oregon's civil detox statute represents one such alternative approach, but the Wilcox case demonstrates that these alternative procedures still must respect constitutional boundaries.
For defense attorneys, the ruling provides important precedent for challenging searches conducted during civil detox holds. For prosecutors, it may require more careful consideration of how evidence is obtained during such encounters.
The case will now return to Washington County Circuit Court, where Judge Andrew Erwin originally presided, for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. The ultimate resolution of Wilcox's case will depend on how the constitutional principles established by the Supreme Court apply to his specific situation.