State v. Jepson
254 Or. App. 290
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Detective Garcia and a DHS worker went to defendant and Fletcher's home to investigate a BB gun incident involving Fletcher and defendant's son.
- Fletcher admitted a BB gun; she denied shooting the child; she and defendant disclosed two other firearms in the home (a shotgun and a handgun).
- Garcia informed them he knew they were felons and could not possess firearms; they provided explanations based on business use and time since felony conviction.
- Garcia checked and later told them that they could not possess the guns; he returned with Deputy Prock and proceeded with rights warnings on the porch.
- Fletcher directed officers to the guns in the bedroom; Prock entered the house and retrieved the firearms while others remained on the porch; no explicit consent to enter was sought.
- Defendant was charged with two counts of felon in possession; he moved to suppress the evidence from the warrantless search; the trial court found consent and a non-seizure encounter, leading to suppressing the evidence, and defendant reserved his right to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was valid consent to search | Jepson (state) argues consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances. | Jepson contends there was no consent; entry/search was a warrantless seizure lacking authorization. | No valid consent; warrantless search invalid |
| Whether defendant’s later disclaimer affects suppression | State argues disclaimer could justify suppression outcome. | Defendant did not effectively disclaim ownership; disclaimer occurred only at suppression hearing; argues no waiver. | Disclaimer insufficient to sustain search; rejection of waiver theory |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dunlap, 215 Or App 46 (2007) (consent exception to warrantless searches; preponderance of evidence standard)
- State v. Berg, 223 Or App 387 (2008) (trial court findings binding on historical facts; legal test of voluntariness)
- State v. Martin, 222 Or App 138 (2008) (consent may be manifested by conduct; acquiescence alone insufficient)
- State v. Freund, 102 Or App 647 (1990) (unconditional statements about search deny invitation for consent)
- State v. Ry/Guinto, 211 Or App 298 (2007) (repeated prompting and explicit requests can show voluntary consent)
- State v. Brown, 348 Or 293 (2010) (waiver/consent analysis when ownership or rights are disputed)
- State v. Tanner, 304 Or 312 (1987) (disclaimer and possessory rights analysis in suppression)