can be drawn from the evidence and no evidence provides a contrary explanation of the searching officers’ conduct, we will affirm a trial court’s conclusion that subjective probable cause existed. See State v. Belt, 325 e point the encounter was transformed into a stop. In turn, defendant does not contend that the vehicle was immobile when the stop occurred. Instead, he asserts that, by the time the backpack was searched, the vehicle had been constructively impounded by the police. In particular, defendant contends that any exigency justifying the automobile exception was extinguished when defendant and Johnson were arrested and the narcotics team secured the car and its contents. At that point, defendant asserts, both car and contents had been seized. See Owens, 302 Or at 207 (<HOLDING>). According to defendant, seizure is the
holding that there was no fourth amendment seizure where delivery of package was not delayed because it is the extent of the interference with the defendants possessory interest in the property that determines whether a seizure has occurred holding that in the fourth amendment context a seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individuals possessory interests in that property holding that a passenger who lacked a property or possessory interest in the automobile or property seized lacked standing to challenge a search of the car holding that a seizure occurs when there is a significant interference with a persons possessory or ownership interest in property holding that petitioners who asserted neither a property interest nor a possessory interest in property searched or seized were not entitled to assert a constitutional challenge to the search