Willamette Law Online

Oregon Court of Appeals


ListPreviousNext


State v. Hudson

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 11-07-2012
Case #: A140356
Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Brewer, J.; and Sercombe, J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A140356.pdf

Criminal Procedure: Trial court properly denied a motion to suppress when Defendant was properly seized, police entered the house under exigent circumstances, police properly read Defendant his Miranda warnings, and asked only clarifying questions after Defendant equivocally invoked his right to counsel.

Defendant appealed his convictions for aggravated murder and abuse of a corpse, asserting that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence raising four arguments. Defendant argued that he was illegally seized when police used a loudspeaker to demand that he leave his house with his hands up. The Court concluded that a reasonable person would have believed using a loudspeaker to order his exit from his home temporarily restrained his freedom but it was lawful because the police had reasonable suspicion arising from the totality of the circumstances. Defendant next argued that the police's warrantless entry into house was unlawful. The Court again disagreed, finding that police entered pursuant to exigent circumstances created by the risk that Defendant destroyed evidence in the ostensible crime scene. Next, Defendant argued that he was arrested without probable cause. The Court again disagreed, finding that there was a substantial objective basis for believing that Defendant had committed the crime, since he was in the two murder victims' home, he failed to answer the telephone although police could observe him inside, among other facts. The Court rejected Defendant's final argument that he was questioned without being read his Miranda warnings, and interrogated after he invoked his right to counsel. The Court ruled that the police asked only Defendant's name, and for consent to search the house, questions not likely to elicit incriminating responses. When Defendant equivocally invoked his right to counsel, police asked only clarifying questions before Defendant withdrew his invocation. Affirmed.