State v. Pichardo

State v. Unger and the companion cases have modified the analysis set forth in State v. Hall say that, “when a defendant seeks to suppress evidence discovered during a consent search that followed unlawful police conduct, ‘the state bears the burden of demonstrating that (1) the consent was voluntary; and (2) the consent was not the product of police exploitation of the illegal stop or search.’”

This case was previously decided in State v. Pichardo, 263 Or App, 1 (2014) (Pichardo I). The Supreme Court subsequently vacated and remanded Pichardo I for reconsideration upon deciding State V. Unger and its companion cases. Defendant was originally stopped for blocking traffic with his vehicle in violation of ORS 811.130. Defendant had stopped his vehicle in a lane of traffic and left it idling while a man, who police were looking for, got into the vehicle. After the initial stop, officers asked Defendant if they could search Defendant for drugs. Defendant admitted that he had drugs on his person and was searched. Officers then asked if they could search Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant again admitted to having drugs in the vehicle and consented to the search. Defendant appealed his conviction of the drug charges, alleging that the stop and subsequent search were illegal. Using the Unger analysis, this Court found that that the State failed to prove that “the consent was not the product of police exploitation of that the illegal stop or search.” Reversed and remanded.