- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 07-31-2013
- Case #: A146377
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Wollheim, J., Nakamoto, J., and Schuman, P.J. for the Court
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant was arrested for DUII and driving while revoked. When the police approached Defendant, he turned and ran into a resort condominium. The officer knocked on the door of the condominium, and told the woman who answered that they needed to speak to the person who just ran in the room. The woman stepped aside and the officer entered without a warrant and found Defendant. Defendant argued that the entry violated Article 1, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. The state responded that the entry was based on consent. The trial court found that the woman consented to entry, and the Court of Appeals agreed. Acquiescence is different from consent; it occurs where an officer makes a statement to a person that does not allow a choice as an alternative to consent. While it appears that the woman merely acquiesced to the officer’s request in this case, she did have the option of letting the officer enter or bringing Defendant to the door. Since the woman stepped aside to let the officer enter, she consented to entry of the hotel room and there was no violation of the Constitution. Affirmed.