State v. Knapp

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 11-29-2017
  • Case #: A145259
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, J. pro tempore for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Tookey, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

For the inevitable discovery exception to the warrant requirement to apply, the State must prove that, even if officers had not conducted a warrantless search, the evidence would have been inevitably discovered through "proper and predictable investigatory procedures." State v. Hensley, 281 Or App 523, 535 (2016).

The Court of Appeals reviewed the case on remand from the Supreme Court to reconsider its original decision in light of State v. Unger, 356 Or 59 (2014), in which the Supreme Court identified additional factors to consider in the determination of whether evidence obtained following unlawful police conduct is admissible under the attenuation exception to the warrant requirement. In its original decision, the Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of a vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger during an unlawfully extended traffic stop. On remand, the State did not make an attenuation argument—rather, it renewed its prior argument that the challenged evidence was admissible because it’s discovery was inevitable. For the inevitable discovery exception to the warrant requirement to apply, the State must prove that even if officers had not conducted a warrantless search, the evidence would have inevitably been discovered through “proper and predictable investigatory procedures.” State v. Hensley, 281 Or App 523, 535 (2016). The Court of Appeals concluded the inevitable discovery exception did not apply because the State did not present evidence to support factual findings that officers would have discovered the evidence through investigatory procedures. The Court held the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress because the evidence was obtained as a result of unlawful police conduct that violated Defendant’s Article I, section 9 rights. Reversed and remanded.  

Advanced Search