State v. Ashbaugh, 244 P.3d 360

Two police officers in Beaverton park questioned defendant and her husband after approaching them for identification; they learned defendant’s husband violated a restraining order and arrested him; defendant remained at the scene while the arrest occurred.
Officers returned defendant’s ID and completed the arrest process for the husband; during that time, they discussed the restraining order with both and allowed defendant to stay under the tree.
After arresting the husband, Schaer asked if he could look in defendant’s purse; defendant consented, and Schaer searched the purse, uncovering methamphetamine, baggies, and paraphernalia.
Defendant moved to suppress all evidence from the purse search, arguing the consent was a product of an unlawful stop; trial court denied the motion; Court of Appeals remanded for factfinding on whether a later encounter was a seizure.
Supreme Court of Oregon granted review to resolve (1) whether the purse search was tainted by an unlawful stop or exploitation, and (2) whether the later encounter constituted a seizure under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution; the court ultimately held the consent was not tainted and abandoned the subjective belief element in favor of an objective totality-of-circumstances standard for seizures.
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant’s consent to search the purse was tainted by an unlawful stop	Ashbaugh argues exploitation of the prior unlawful stop should suppress.	Ashbaugh contends the initial stop tainted consent through exploitation.	No suppression; no causal link shown.
Whether Schaer’s request to search the purse amounted to a seizure under Article I, 9	Ashbaugh contends the request was a seizure.	Ashbaugh argues it was merely conversation.	Not a seizure under the Court’s new standard.
Whether Holmes part (b) subjective belief analysis should be abandoned in favor of an objective standard	Ashbaugh supports retaining some subjective belief consideration.	Ashbaugh argues for objective indication and belief consideration.	Abandon subjective component; adopt objective totality-of-circumstances standard.
What is the proper framework for defining a seizure in Oregon Constitution jurisprudence	State seeks a totality-of-circumstances approach.	State argues Holmes framework remains viable.	Adopt a fully objective standard for seizure analysis.
Whether the initial unlawful stop requires suppression of subsequent evidence obtained by consent	Exploitation theory supports suppression.	Consent independent of, or not tainted by, initial stop.	Not suppressing evidence; consent independent.

State v. Holmes, 311 Or. 400 (1991) (two-part Holmes seizure test criticized/modified later by Oregon Supreme Court)
State v. Rodriguez, 317 Or. 27 (1993) (exploitation of prior illegality can taint consent)
State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7 (2005) (show of authority; warrant check seizure analysis)
State v. Thompkin, 341 Or. 368 (2006) (seizure analysis in drug investigations)
State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or. 610 (2010) (seizure after completion of initial investigation; show of authority)
State v. Toevs, 327 Or. 525 (1998) (subjective belief vs. objective reasonableness in part (b))
State v. Dahl, 323 Or. 199 (1996) (Holmes framework lineage)
State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (1993) (Holmes analysis discussions)
State v. Juarez-Godinez, 326 Or. 1 (1997) (subjective belief aspects in analysis)
State v. Warner, 284 Or. 147 (1978) (earlier seizure/show of authority doctrine)