State v. Gardner

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 05-29-2014
  • Case #: A146833
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Sercombe, J.; and De Muniz, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Even if a search violates Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, because it resulted in constitutionally tainted information being included in a warrant application, it does not compel the conclusion that a search conducted pursuant to that warrant was invalid.

Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful delivery of methamphetamine and unlawful posession of methamphetamine. He argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from two of three entries into his residence by police officers, because the warrant for the third entry was based partly on evidence that was observed and seized during the first two warrantless entries, which violates Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. Evidence from the second and third entries was admitted at Defendant’s trial. Police officers had executed a search warrant for other structures on the property, in connection with a suspect living in one of those structures. That suspect was arrested during the search. The officers then performed a “protective sweep” of Defendant’s residence. The arrested suspect, who rented a room in Defendant’s residence, consented to a search of that room, where officers found and seized methamphetamine. Defendant subsequently arrived at the property. He agreed to let officers accompany him to his room in his residence to retrieve a document related to ownership of equipment. During this second entry, the officers seized suspected drugs previously observed during their sweep. Defendant asked the officers to stop the search. The officers then obtained a search warrant, based in part on what they had observed and seized during the two warrantless entries. Upon execution of the warrant, the officers seized weapons, and more drugs. The Court held that the warrant for Defendant’s residence was valid because, excising the information obtained from the two warrantless entries, the remaining information in the warrant was sufficient to allow a neutral court to find probable cause for the warrant. Affirmed.

Advanced Search