State v. Bailey
338 P.3d 702
Or.2014Background
- Police stopped a car after aerial surveillance and a minor traffic violation; Bailey was a rear-seat passenger who refused to identify himself.
- Officers extended the stop beyond the time needed to address the traffic matter (circuit court found ~37 minutes total; should have been ~5 minutes) while attempting to identify passengers.
- An officer called a gang-unit officer to identify Bailey; that officer arrived ~25–30 minutes later and identified Bailey, whereupon a warrant check revealed an outstanding arrest warrant.
- Officers arrested Bailey on the warrant and, during a search incident to arrest, found cocaine and $700; Bailey was charged with drug offenses and tampering.
- Bailey moved to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an unlawful detention; the circuit court denied suppression, the Court of Appeals affirmed relying on State v. Dempster, and the Oregon Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery and execution of a valid arrest warrant discovered during an unlawful detention automatically attenuates the taint of the prior illegality | State: discovery of a valid warrant breaks causal chain per Dempster; evidence admissible | Bailey: Dempster’s per se rule is inconsistent with later Supreme Court attenuation doctrine—warrant discovery should be weighed under Brown factors | Court rejected Dempster’s per se rule and applied Brown factors; suppression required because attenuation not established |
| Proper framework for attenuation analysis under the Fourth Amendment | State: Hudson or other cases limit Brown’s reach; warrant discovery can be dispositive | Bailey: Brown’s three-factor test controls attenuation inquiries, even when a warrant is later found | Court held Brown’s three-factor test governs (temporal proximity; intervening circumstances; purpose/flagrancy) |
| Application of Brown factors to these facts | State: brief temporal gap and warrant discovery suffice to admit evidence | Bailey: long investigatory detention, warrant-discovery objective of detention, and flagrant misconduct preclude attenuation | Court held temporal proximity and intervening-circumstance weight low relative to flagrancy; officers’ purposeful, extended, suspicionless detention fatally undermined attenuation |
| Whether Hudson v. Michigan changes attenuation analysis | State: Hudson narrows exclusionary rule application to make warrant discovery dispositive in some contexts | Bailey: Hudson is limited to knock-and-announce context and does not displace Brown | Court held Hudson did not supplant Brown; Hudson is inapposite here |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (sets three-factor attenuation test: temporal proximity; intervening circumstances; purpose and flagrancy of misconduct)
- State v. Dempster, 248 Or. 404 (1967) (earlier Oregon decision adopting per se rule that a valid warrant attenuates prior misconduct)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (exclusionary rule applies to direct and indirect ‘fruits’ of unlawful police conduct)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (knock-and-announce violation; exclusionary rule inapplicable where rule violation unlikely to have produced the evidence)
- INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (exclusionary rule is a judicial remedy evaluated by balancing deterrence benefits against costs)
- Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (evidence obtained by unlawful means is not admissible)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (passengers are seized during a traffic stop)