State v. Hudson
253 Or. App. 327
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- November 2006 homicide scene on Highway 26; two male victims with brutal injuries; one body dismembered; evidence suggested crimes occurred elsewhere and bodies dumped.
- Detectives identified Copeland via ID card; Littrell and then Francis Weber linked to the suspect residence at 6738 SE 62nd St, Portland; a maroon van tied to the case was sought.
- Police observed a man inside the 62nd Street house after a loud, stormy night; occupants included a third roommate whose whereabouts were unknown.
- Loud hail ordered the person out of the house; defendant emerged with potential bloodstains on his pants; he was handcuffed and detained for questioning.
- Detectives obtained consent to search the house from defendant after he was moved to a police van; Miranda warnings were given after consent and prior to substantial questioning.
- A subsequent walk-through and search of the house occurred after a signed consent, leading to seizure of evidence; DNA and other physical evidence linked defendant to the murders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the loud hail/seizure was lawful | State: seizure justified by exigent circumstances | Dahl-based claim of unlawful seizure if entry was without warrant | Seizure occurred but was lawful under exigent circumstances |
| Whether warrantless entry into the house was lawful | State: exigent circumstances and probable cause justified entry | Dahl requires warrant absent exigency | Exigent circumstances and probable cause justified warrantless entry |
| Whether Miranda warnings were required before questioning | State: warnings not required for consent/search questions | Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation | Warnings required; questions after initial contact deemed non-custodial or harmless error where applicable |
| Whether defendant’s invocation of counsel was equivocal | State: invocation not clearly equivocal; warnings given | Invocation was equivocal; police failed to clarify | Responses were proper; interrogation did not violate right to counsel; in any event, harmless error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400 (1991) (reasonable seizure and interactions with police evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Dahl, 323 Or 199 (1996) (totality-of-circumstances seizure analysis; Dahl used to assess when incoming orders constitute seizure)
- State v. Bridewell, 306 Or 231 (1988) (emergency doctrine for warrantless entry to secure crime scene)
- State v. Stevens, 311 Or 119 (1991) (emergency doctrine; exigent circumstances for warrantless entry when evidence may be destroyed)
- State v. Nguyen, 176 Or App 258 (2001) (reasonable suspicion standard for stop/investigation; specific articulable facts and inferences)