338 P.3d 160
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Garrett, J. reviews reconsideration of Lambert decision denying suppression of evidence from unlawful vehicle seizure.
- Lambert involved a warrantless seizure of defendant’s vehicle after a break-in; the court remanded to consider whether evidence was actually obtained from the unlawful seizure.
- Defendant’s Jeep was towed to an impound lot after arrest; a 4x4 decal was found four days later, linking to August break-in.
- Police applied for a search warrant based on the decal and related observations; a red pH pen was found in the Jeep during the warrant.
- Trial court denied suppression of the warrantless seizure; Lambert remanded to assess inevitable discovery/independent source.
- Court now holds remand was improper and evidence must be suppressed as unlawfully obtained, reversing Counts 2 and 3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand to resolve inevitable discovery was proper | Lambert allowed inevitable discovery | Record shows no inevitable discovery | Not proper; evidence must be suppressed |
| Whether evidence from the unlawful seizure could be admissible via independent source | Independent source applies | No independent source established | No; suppression required |
| Whether the state preserved all preservation arguments adequately | Preserved on appeal | Record undeveloped | State did not rely on preservation to avoid suppression; burden on state remains |
| Whether the malicious or unlawful tow tainted the warrant and connected evidence | Tow lawful; warrants independent | Tow unlawfully tainted evidence | Unlawful tow tainted; evidence suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grover, 193 Or App 165 (2004) (remand for factual findings only when conflicting evidence exists on critical fact)
- State v. Marshall, 254 Or App 419 (2013) (state bears burden to prove admissibility of evidence despite illegality)
- State v. Smith, 327 Or 366 (1998) (independent source/inevitable discovery distinction in warrantless seizure cases)
- State v. Unger, 356 Or 59 (2014) (illegality taints evidence but may be rebutted by independent source)
- State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (2005) (evidence may be admissible if independent of illegality)
- State v. Lovaina-Burmudez, 257 Or App 1 (2013) (burden to show evidence not tainted despite inadvertent seizure)
- State v. Clapper, 216 Or App 413 (2007) (standard for sufficiency of a warrant)
- State v. Miller, 300 Or 203 (1985) (inevitable discovery requires evidence would be discovered absent illegality)