497 P.3d 710
Or.2021Background
- Officer Pelayo, after ~18 months investigating a suspected drug enterprise, had an informant (Williams) report DeJong sold meth and arrange a buy; Williams reported a sale to Flora Penrod, who lived in DeJong’s basement.
- Pelayo and other officers went to DeJong’s home; they arrested DeJong without a warrant and then secured the residence.
- Officers located Penrod, interviewed her (first at the scene, later at the station), and obtained detailed statements about buying meth from DeJong.
- Pelayo’s warrant affidavit relied in part on Williams’s texts and Penrod’s statements; a judge issued a warrant and a subsequent search recovered meth-related evidence.
- The trial court ruled the initial warrantless seizure unlawful and suppressed Penrod’s statements from the affidavit but concluded the remaining affidavit established probable cause and denied suppression of the search evidence. DeJong pleaded guilty conditionally and appealed.
- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court, holding DeJong met the minimal nexus under State v. Johnson and that the record is legally insufficient to show the State proved inevitable discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson burden‑shifting should be abandoned | Stare decisis supports Johnson; its framework is settled law for warranted searches preceded by illegality | Johnson should be disavowed; burden should be on state as with warrantless consent searches | Johnson retained; court declines to overrule it |
| Whether DeJong met the "minimal factual nexus" to shift burden to the State | DeJong failed to prove a factual link and must show goods might have been removed absent the seizure | The officers used information (Penrod’s statements) obtained during the unlawful seizure to get the warrant, satisfying Johnson’s minimal nexus | DeJong satisfied the minimal factual nexus because Penrod’s statements obtained during the illegal seizure were used in the warrant application |
| Whether the State proved the evidence was untainted (inevitable discovery) | The State would have inevitably discovered the evidence during a lawful warrant search; no one removed the evidence while the house was secured | Record lacks proof the State would inevitably have found the evidence; other persons attempted or sought access while officers secured the residence | The record is legally insufficient to support inevitable discovery; State did not meet its burden |
| Remedy given DeJong’s conditional guilty plea | No specific additional relief argued | DeJong may withdraw plea if suppression succeeds | Case remanded; conviction vacated as to the suppressed evidence and DeJong may withdraw plea under ORS 135.335(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 335 Or 511 (Or. 2003) (adopts burden‑shifting framework for warranted searches preceded by unlawful government conduct)
- State v. Unger, 356 Or 59 (Or. 2014) (refines exploitation/consent analysis for warrantless searches and disavows Hall’s minimal‑nexus step in that context)
- State v. Smith, 327 Or 366 (Or. 1998) (Oregon exclusionary rule vindicates personal right; evidence need only be suppressed if actually obtained by illegality)
- State v. Sargent, 323 Or 455 (Or. 1996) (warranted search following an assumed unlawful seizure did not require suppression where no one attempted to access premises)
- State v. Miller, 300 Or 203 (Or. 1985) (describes and applies inevitable discovery doctrine; prosecution must prove by preponderance that evidence inevitably would have been discovered)