State v. Kimmons
271 Or. App. 592
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant challenged suppression of handguns found in a locked glove box during a police search following a stop for suspected trespass and unpaid parking.
- Officers stopped defendant and questioned her; she admitted not paying for parking and produced license but no proof of insurance.
- Police obtained consent to search the car for items that could hurt them; defendant consented broadly.
- Glove box was locked; officers pried it open, discovered a handgun, and later found two loaded handguns after opening the glove box with keys.
- Trial court denied suppression; on appeal, court held the stop was unlawfully extended to investigate unrelated matters, requiring suppression and reversal.
- This opinion remands to suppress the evidence and reconsider the convictions on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was unlawfully extended to investigate unrelated matters | Defendant argues the consent request extended the stop without reasonable suspicion | State contends extension was lawful; the stop remained based on plausible trespass/insurance concerns | Unlawful extension; seizure invalid; suppression required |
| Whether suppression is warranted under Hall/Unger for attenuated or exploited consent | Consent to search stemmed from the illegal extension and should be suppressed | No exploitation or attenuation argument developed; consent may be valid independently | Suppression required; evidence tainted by illegal extension |
| Whether the initial stop for trespass/insurance was valid | State argues initial stop based on trespass/insurance concerns | Defendant contends initial stop may be valid but extension taints it | Court did not affirmatively rely on an independently valid basis; focus on unlawful extension |
| Whether the handgun evidence can be saved under attenuation framework | State bears burden to show attenuated link between illegality and consent | Attenuation not shown; exploitation theory not satisfied | Not reviewable as alternative basis; main rule remains suppression |
| Whether other issues (merger, scope of consent) affect outcome | Defendant raises merger and scope arguments | State did not pursue these below in support of affirmance | Court declines to address; overall disposition remains suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 (2010) (framework governing unlawful extension of a stop; required reasonable suspicion for extended inquiry)
- State v. Hendon, 222 Or App 97 (2008) (unlawful extension where consent to search occurs outside unavoidable lull)
- State v. Klein, 234 Or App 523 (2010) (extension of stop when seeking consent to search for weapons without reasonable suspicion improper)
- State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (2005) (foundation for suppression analysis under Unger)
- State v. Unger, 356 Or 59 (2014) (attenuation burden on state to prove consent not product of illegality)