State v. Jones, 365 P.3d 679

Officer observed defendant step from sidewalk into bushes, approached him, and unlawfully seized him (parties stipulated to illegality).\
During the unlawful seizure, the officer sought identification and ran a warrants check.\
The warrants check revealed an outstanding arrest warrant; officer arrested defendant and placed him in patrol car.\
Methamphetamine was discovered in the area of the patrol car after the arrest.\
Defendant moved to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 9 (Oregon Constitution). Trial court found Article I, § 9 inapplicable but suppressed under the Fourth Amendment.\
On appeal, state conceded the seizure was unlawful and argued the later discovery of the warrant attenuated the taint; defendant argued suppression was required under Article I, § 9. The appellate court reviewed attenuation under state law and denied remand for further factual development.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery and execution of an outstanding arrest warrant attenuated the connection between an unlawful seizure and evidence found after arrest	Discovery of a valid arrest warrant is an intervening circumstance that purges the taint and makes evidence admissible	Evidence remained tainted because the warrant was discovered as a direct objective of the unlawful investigatory seizure	State failed to meet its burden to prove attenuation under Article I, § 9; suppression affirmed
Whether remand for additional factual development was required because state relied on earlier precedent at the hearing	Remand necessary because Bailey/Unger standards changed the legal test and state had no opportunity to develop evidence under the new test	No remand; attenuation can be evaluated on undisputed facts already before the trial court	Remand denied; appellate court evaluated attenuation on the existing record

State v. Dempster, 248 Or. 404 (1967) (former Oregon rule treating discovery of outstanding warrant as per se purification of prior illegal detention)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (Supreme Court attenuation factors: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, purpose/flagrancy)
State v. Unger, 356 Or. 59 (2014) (Article I, § 9 attenuation/totality-of-circumstances framework)
State v. Bailey, 356 Or. 486 (2014) (disavowed Dempster per se rule; applied Brown factors to warrant-discovery context)
State v. Benning, 273 Or. App. 183 (2015) (applied Unger factors to evaluate attenuation under Article I, § 9)
United States v. Luckett, 484 F.2d 89 (9th Cir.) (federal case relied on below regarding suppression after unlawful detention and warrant check)