State v. Lowell, 364 P.3d 34

Background

Defendant crashed his bicycle into a car, was injured, and initially refused transport until Officer Riddle (a responding officer) persuaded him to go to the hospital. Paramedics transported defendant and he signed a voluntary consent-to-treatment form.
A second officer, Folkerte, arrived later, followed to the hospital after paramedics reported defendant acting paranoid and requesting that his backpack be dropped off elsewhere.
In the hospital room Folkerte smelled marijuana, asked for consent to search the backpack, obtained oral and written consent, and found marijuana, a digital scale, and paraphernalia.
Folkerte read Miranda warnings, then questioned defendant, who admitted selling marijuana; Folkerte later seized and searched defendant’s cell phone and read text messages indicating sales.
Defendant was cited (not arrested), moved to suppress the backpack evidence, his statements, and the text messages; the trial court denied suppression. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was defendant seized at the accident scene such that later evidence must be suppressed?	State: interactions with Riddle and Folkerte are separate; any seizure ended before hospital contact.	Defendant: Riddle’s ultimatum and follow-through created an ongoing seizure exploited by police.	Court assumed but did not decide whether initial seizure occurred; concluded any seizure ended by hospital arrival and did not taint later evidence.
Was consent to search backpack tainted by prior unlawful seizure (exploitation/attenuation)?	State: consent was voluntary and sufficiently attenuated from any prior illegality; Folkerte had independent basis (smell) and fully advised of right to refuse.	Defendant: consent flowed from and was exploited from the earlier seizure; must be suppressed.	Held: No exploitation. Multiple attenuating factors (community-caretaking, intervening lawful conduct, explicit advisals) made consent independent/tenuously related.
Were defendant’s post-Miranda statements admissible despite earlier conduct and timing of warnings?	State: Miranda warnings were given before questioning about sales and were effective to attenuate any earlier illegality.	Defendant: questioning occurred in a "compelling" hospital context requiring earlier warnings; post-warnings ineffective under Vondehn; or statements exploited earlier seizure.	Held: No compelling circumstances required immediate Miranda; warnings before questions about sales were effective; statements admissible.
Was the warrantless search of cell phone text messages lawful as search incident to arrest?	State: search was permissible incident to arrest.	Defendant: Riley applies — search incident to arrest does not permit warrantless search of cell phone data.	Held: Trial court erred. Under Riley, warrant generally required for digital cell-phone data; text messages suppressed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Unger, 356 Or. 59 (explains exploitation/attenuation analysis for consent searches)
State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or. 297 (defines "seizure" under Article I, §9 and when a seizure ends)
State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (standard of review for suppression hearing factual findings)
State v. Ayles, 348 Or. 622 (discusses Miranda warnings’ role in attenuating taint from illegal seizures)
State v. Vennell, 274 Or. App. 94 (upholds strong smell of marijuana as basis for investigatory action)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (Fourth Amendment requires warrant generally before searching digital data on cell phones)