State v. Klein
283 P.3d 350
| Or. | 2012Background
- Klein challenges evidence gathered under a body-wire order and subsequent wiretap order in a murder case.
- Hutchens wore a body-wire; conversations were recorded between Hale and Hutchens implicating Klein.
- An subsequent wiretap order authorized interception of Klein’s mobile-phone communications.
- Klein moves to suppress body-wire evidence (not named in the order) and wiretap evidence (named, but based on body-wire information).
- Court of Appeals upheld that Klein had no standing for body-wire suppression but could challenge the wiretap; held Banks testimony was harmless error.
- Oregon Supreme Court affirms Court of Appeals; adopts federal-standing framework for 'aggrieved person' and denies Klein relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of aggrieved person as to body-wire order | Klein argues he is a person aggrieved because he was a subject of the investigation. | State contends only named or intercepted parties have standing. | Klein not aggrieved; order targeted Hale, not Klein. |
| Aggrieved person as to wiretap order | Klein should suppress wiretap evidence if body-wire invalidates it. | Klein is an aggrieved person for wiretap as he is party to intercepted communications and named. | Klein is aggrieved for wiretap; standing satisfied. |
| Derivative suppression stemming from body-wire evidence | If body-wire is unlawful, wiretap evidence must be suppressed. | Suppression should be compelled based on body-wire unlawfulness for independent standing. | Supression of wiretap evidence denied; reliance on body-wire is insufficient for separate suppression. |
| Exclusion of Banks testimony | Exclusion was prejudicial; Banks testimony offered non-cumulative impeachment evidence. | Banks testimony would be cumulative given Hutchens’s own statements. | Exclusion deemed harmless error; not likely to affect verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation guiding aggrieved person framework)
- Alderman v. United States, 394 US 165 (1969) (standing to suppress evidence aligns with Fourth Amendment rules)
- United States v. Williams, 580 F2d 578 (DC Cir 1978) (aggrieved person standing limited to those named or parties to interception)
- State v. Lissy, 304 Or 455 (1987) (legislative history referenced in aligning with federal law)
- Pamplin v. Victoria, 319 Or 429 (1994) (uses federal precedent to interpret Oregon standing rules)