State v. Unger

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 09-26-2012
  • Case #: A144192
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; and Haselton, C.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Consent to search a residence is invalid if it is obtained after officers have illegally trespassed in the individual's backyard therefore making any evidence that results from the consent inadmissible.

Defendant appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Four police officers entered Defendant's backyard, knocked on his backdoor, and obtained his consent to search the home. The officers found evidence of drug activity and used that evidence to obtain a search warrant, resulting in Defendant's conviction of two counts of manufacture of cocaine. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds that the officer's obtained his consent illegally by entering his backyard, violating his constitutional rights under Article 1, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, The State argued that Defendant's consent was independent of the illegal police conduct. The Court of Appeals held that the officers violated the Defendant's constitutional rights when they obtained his consent after illegally trespassing in his backyard. Therefore, all evidence obtained from the search should have been suppressed. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search