State v. Gardner, 327 P.3d 1169

Police executed a warrant at mobile homes on defendant's one-acre property targeting Darell Thompson for methamphetamine activity; five officers conducted the operation at night.
During that operation officers conducted a brief protective sweep of defendant’s residence, opening doors and checking rooms; they observed knives, packaging with white residue, ammunition, an empty holster, and propane bottles in the garage but did not seize those items then.
One occupant, Hiler, consented to a search of his room inside defendant’s residence; officers found and seized a small bag of methamphetamine and a pipe there.
Defendant returned, told officers he rented a room to Hiler, accompanied officers to his room to retrieve skid-steer documents, and at that time officers seized packaging with white residue they had previously observed.
Police later obtained a search warrant for defendant’s residence based on an affidavit that included information from the earlier warrantless entries; the subsequent warranted search produced methamphetamine, paraphernalia, knives, a pistol, a scale, and writings suggesting drug activity.
Defendant moved to suppress evidence seized during the second warrantless entry and the warranted search under Article I, section 9, Oregon Constitution; the trial court denied the motion and the conviction was appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence from the warrant-authorized search must be suppressed because affidavit relied on information from prior warrantless entries	State: Even if affidavit contained some tainted info, excising that info still leaves probable cause based on other facts	De Muniz: Warrant application was tainted by unlawfully obtained information from two warrantless entries, so evidence should be suppressed	Court: Excising tainted information, the remaining affidavit provided probable cause; evidence admissible
Whether the warrantless protective sweep and the accompanying entry to retrieve documents violated Article I, §9	State: Court did not need to resolve lawfulness of entries because remaining warranted evidence sufficed	De Muniz: Both warrantless entries were unlawful and tainted the later warrant	Court: Did not decide legality of entries; resolved case on sufficiency after excision

State v. Stevens, 311 Or 119 (trial-court findings of fact binding on appeal)
State v. Hitesman/Page, 113 Or App 356 (when affidavit includes tainted info, court should excise and reassess probable cause)
State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255 (test for whether remaining affidavit establishes probable cause)
State v. Henderson, 341 Or 219 (probable cause standard for searches)