State v. Bonilla
267 Or. App. 337
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Officers visited a property consisting of a main house and a converted garage where Fleshman, Crowe, defendant (daughter), and Bull (mother) lived; Dabbs (defendant’s brother) lived in the main house.
- Dabbs led officers through an open exterior storage area into the converted garage and knocked on the apartment interior door; Crowe admitted officers into the living room after detecting a strong marijuana odor.
- Crowe consented to officers checking a bedroom where Bull (mother) sat; Bull admitted possessing marijuana and consented to a bedroom check.
- An officer opened a wooden box in the bedroom and found three small baggies with crystalline residue (methamphetamine); Bull identified the drugs as belonging to defendant.
- After the box was opened, the officer informed defendant and obtained her consent to a further search, yielding additional methamphetamine paraphernalia; defendant was charged, moved to suppress, was denied, convicted, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a third party (Dabbs) had actual authority to allow officers into the storage area/doorway of the converted garage | Dabbs had authority to admit officers and lead them to the apartment | Dabbs lacked actual authority over the converted garage/door and could not permit entry | Court did not decide this issue because it resolved the case on the box-search consent issue |
| Whether Bull (mother), a co-occupant, had actual authority to consent to a search of defendant’s wooden box found in their shared bedroom | State: Bull’s common authority over the bedroom extended to contents absent evidence limiting access; no limitation shown | Defendant: Authority to consent to shared space does not automatically extend to another occupant’s personal property; Bull lacked access/use of the box | Held: Bull lacked actual authority to consent to search of the wooden box; evidence suppressed |
| Whether the officer’s good-faith belief that Bull had authority cured the warrantless search | State implied officer acted reasonably and in good faith | Defendant: Under Oregon Article I, §9, apparent authority/good faith is irrelevant; consent must be actual | Held: Officer’s good faith is irrelevant for Article I, §9; actual authority is required |
| Whether defendant’s subsequent statements and consent (after discovery of the box contents) must be suppressed as fruit of the unlawful search | State: Statements/consent were voluntary and independently valid | Defendant: Statements and consent were the unattenuated fruit of the unlawful box search | Held: Defendant’s admissions and subsequent consent were products of the unlawful search and must be suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fuller, 158 Or App 501 (roommate’s authority to consent to area search differs from authority to consent to search of another’s personal effects)
- State v. Carsey, 295 Or 32 (officer’s good-faith belief in third-party authority irrelevant under Article I, §9)
- State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 249 Or App 435 (scope of co-occupant authority over shared premises depends on agreed access; presumption of risk-sharing for space)
- State v. Edgell, 153 Or App 108 (owner of vehicle cannot consent to search of passenger’s personal items absent mutual use or joint control)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (Fourth Amendment allows apparent authority doctrine — noted as distinct from Oregon Article I, §9)
- State v. Unger, 356 Or 59 (discussed regarding attenuation and admissibility of derivative statements)
- State v. Lorenzo, 356 Or 134 (discussed regarding attenuation and admissibility of derivative statements)