State v. Jepson

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 12-19-2012
  • Case #: A146418
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Schuman, P.J. for the Court; Wollheim, J., and Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Consent is a valid exception to the warrant requirement, except when that consent is acquired by an officer's use of an unconditional statement, which does not invite a response or request consent, that the officer plans to seize evidence.

Defendant appealed his convictions for Felon in Possession of a Firearm. When deputies arrived at Defendant’s house, investigating a report that Defendant’s child had been shot with a BB gun, they found out that Defendant and his girlfriend, both felons, had weapons in the house. One deputy said, “We’re going to have to take the firearms,” and the other asked where the guns were located. The guns were seized, and Defendant was charged with two counts of Felon in Possession of a Firearm. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that he never gave the officers consent to enter his house at all, but the trial court disagreed, finding that Defendant voluntarily consented because he did not object at the time. Defendant appealed and the Court of Appeals held that both of the deputies’ statements were not requests to obtain consent, but rather, unconditional statements which did not invite a response other than acquiescence. These statements conveyed only the deputies’ intent to seize the guns, and no voluntary consent was given. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search