- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Evidence
- Date Filed: 06-24-2015
- Case #: A148649
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, P.J. For the Court; Haselton, C.J.; & Schuman, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his consent to search his house and yard. Defendant assigned two points of error: first, Defendant contended that the trial court erred in finding that his consent was voluntary, and second, that the police did not have reasonable suspicion in seizing his cell phone, ultimately resulting in an unlawful seizure. The first assignment of error was based on a theory that after Defendant stated he wanted to speak with his lawyer the police engaged in a "continued effort" to overcome his refusal of consent. The Court was not persuaded because the findings of fact made by the trial court showed that Defendant and the police engaged in amiable conversation and the police never brought up the issue of consent again. The second assignment of error was premised on a theory that once Defendant's cell phone was seized he had been stopped, and that for the stop to be lawful there needed to be reasonable suspicion, which the police lacked. The Court was unpersuaded by this argument due to the facts found by the trial court. The Court determined that the evidence of Charlan being stopped with five pounds of marijuana and five pounds of hashish with the intent to sell to either the Defendant or Alderete, and that Charlan was meant to drive to Defendant's house gave the officers reasonable suspicion to stop and seize Defendant's cell phone. Affirmed.