State v. Quigley

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 04-08-2015
  • Case #: A154098
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: DeVore, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

In order to prevail on an argument that evidence would have been inevitably discovered, the State must show that the officer would have sought defendant’s consent to search and that she would have consented, even without an unlawful extension of the stop.

Defendant appealed a conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant was stopped for not properly wearing a seatbelt; she did not have a license, registration, or insurance information. The officer impounded the car and conducted an inventory search, but when the officer asked to inspect Defendant’s purse, Defendant refused to consent. The officer contacted her parole officer, who recommended asking about drugs. The officer did so and told her that if she did not consent to the search, she would be in violation of her parole. Defendant consented and the officer found methamphetamine and paraphernalia. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress drug evidence. The State conceded that the stop was unlawfully extended, but argued that the trial court was not in error because the evidence would have inevitably been discovered. The Court held the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion due to the unlawful extension of the stop; the State failed to demonstrate that the evidence would have inevitably been discovered. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search