State v. Gonzales
243 P.3d 116
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- State petitioned for reconsideration of Gonzales and we modified remand scope regarding suppression arguments.
- Defendant argued the car was unlawfully impounded and that inventory evidence should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment.
- Trial court ruled impoundment lawful; suppression denied; defendant appealed arguing unlawful impoundment.
- State sought to raise alternative grounds on remand beyond the initial grounds, asserting good-faith and lack of possessory interest arguments.
- Our prior opinion stated the inventory evidence should have been suppressed, but the state argued that this holding was too broad and should not foreclose remand arguments.
- We held that, following Parras, Allen, and Nelson, a party may raise alternative theories on remand when the initial suppression ruling was favorable, and we modified the opinion accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the state raise alternative suppression theories on remand? | State should be allowed to present alternatives. | Parker controls; not allowed to re-litigate. | Yes; state may raise alternative theories on remand. |
| Did the prior broad statement about suppression need modification? | Statement too broad; remand should permit alternatives. | Parker forecloses second bite at the apple. | Statement narrowed; remand may include alternative grounds. |
| Whether the court can permit remand to address arguments not reached due to earlier ruling? | Remand appropriate to develop alternative theories. | Remand should be limited by prior procedural posture. | Remand permissible to litigate otherwise unreached theories. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Parras, 52 Or.App. 1071 (1981) (second theory of admissibility may be raised on remand when first theory prevailed)
- State v. Allen, 222 Or.App. 71 (2008) (defendant may litigate issues not reached after state prevails on suppression)
- State v. Nelson, 181 Or.App. 593 (2002) (defendant can raise issues not addressed on appeal after suppression ruling)
- State v. Parker, 227 Or.App. 413 (2009) (remand limits on addressing federal vs. state issues; caution against second bite)