State v. Guggenmos, 253 P.3d 1042

February 9, 2005, detective without a warrant searched defendant's bedroom during an officer-safety protective sweep at Tidwell's residence in Klamath Falls.
Informants allegedly linked the Third Street house to drug activity and to harboring wanted persons; two unnamed informants' tips were relied upon by officers.
Two men were seen running down a staircase; one identified as defendant; tidwell consented to search of the house except defendant's bedroom.
Detective Mogle searched the bedroom without a warrant; upon observing drug paraphernalia, he exited and later obtained defendant's consent to a second search, leading to methamphetamine discovery.
Tidwell's broad consent to search, coupled with Mogle's initial unlawful entry, formed the basis for suppression issues; the Court of Appeals affirmed suppression, the trial court denied it.
The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding the initial bedroom search unlawful under Article I, section 9, and suppressed the subsequently obtained admissions and evidence; the majority remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officer-safety protective sweep with warrantless entry violated Article I, section 9.	State: sweep justified by officer safety based on facts.	Guggenmos: no valid officer-safety basis; unlawful search	Yes, unlawful search; suppress evidence
Whether unnamed informants' tips could establish reasonable suspicion for the officer-safety search.	State: tips corroborated by observations inside house.	Guggenmos: tips unreliable; insufficient corroboration	No, tips not reliable or sufficiently corroborated to justify suspicion
Whether the consent to search was tainted by the prior unlawful search and thus the second search and admissions should be suppressed under Williamson.	State: consent voluntary despite earlier illegality.	Guggenmos: consent tainted by unlawful search; suppress	Yes, suppression of admissions and methamphetamine evidence required
Whether the evidence obtained from the unlawful bedroom search could be saved by an alternative basis (e.g., independent consent, exigent circumstances).	State: officer-safety exception supports search.	Guggenmos: exception not satisfied; violation stands	No, evidence suppressed; majority adopts suppression ruling.

State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 (1987) (immedi ate threat standard based on specific and articulable facts)
State v. Cocke, 334 Or. 1 (2002) (protective sweep concept under Article I, section 9; limits in private residences)
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep standard; limited scope to areas where an occupant could be found)
State v. Williamson, 307 Or. 621 (1989) (exploitation analysis; voluntariness of consent after unlawful stop)
State v. Morgan, 348 Or. 283 (2010) (purses/weapon safety concern in officer safety context; distinguishable from the case)
State v. Amaya, 336 Or. 616 (2004) (officer safety considerations in searches during encounters)
State v. Lichty, 313 Or. 579 (1992) (informant reliability and reasonable suspicion framework)