State v. Brock

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 12-19-2012
  • Case #: A145257
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Schuman, P.J. for the Court; Wolheim, J.; and Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A prior unlawful act will not taint the consent given to authorities unless the Defendant can prove some factual nexus between the unlawful act and the consent given.

Defendant appealed his conviction of felon in possession of a firearm (ORS 166.271) and possession of methamphetamine (ORS 475.894), claiming the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found at his residence. Defendant claims both, that he did not give proper consent to search his house and that the officers illegal entry into his house negated the consent he had given. The Court of Appeals found that Defendant's consent was voluntary, not the product of coercion, and was not an act of compliance with a thinly veiled demand. Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances test from State v. Dunlap, the consent was valid. Since the Defendant did not establish a nexus between the unlawful entry and his consent, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.

Advanced Search