State v. Wynne

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 10-09-2013
  • Case #: A149312
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, PJ; Hadlock, J; and Sercombe, J for the Court.
  • Full Text Opinion

A motion to suppress evidence on the grounds of unlawful seizure must establish a causal connection between the unlawful seizure and the discovery of challenged evidence.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for one count of unlawful possession of MDMA. Police responded to Defendant's home pursuant to a domestic disturbance call. Police, en route to Defendant's house, found Defendant walking on the road. Police offered to take Defendant back to his home. Defendant accepted and sat in the backseat of the police vehicle. Upon arrival at Defendant's home, Defendant requested to stay in the vehicle. Police were allowed entry into Defendant's home by Defendant's co-tenant mother who granted permission to enter. Upon entry evidence of drug use was found. Police then arrested the Defendant. At trial, Defendant attempted to suppress the drug evidence as stemming from his detention in the backseat of a police vehicle precluded him from presence as to deny consent to search, thus making the search unlawful. On appeal, the Court noted that Defendant must prove a "minimal factual nexus" between the unlawful conduct of the police and the evidence Defendant sought to suppress. See State v. Hall, 339 Or 25. The Court concluded that Defendant could not prove a minimal factual nexus because Defendant was not worse off than if the police acted lawfully. See Hall, 339 Or at 25. Affirmed.

Advanced Search