State v. Marshall
254 Or. App. 419
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant ran an RV trailer park in Umatilla, living in a converted bus with a shop behind his residence.
- Police investigated drug activity; Mercer and Barnes provided leads about stolen jewelry and a camp trailer with potential stolen items.
- Investigators obtained a search warrant for defendant's bus and shop based on tips about drugs and stolen property.
- During the warrant execution, officers found methamphetamine, paraphernalia, and stolen items, including a Prowler RV-related paperwork located elsewhere at the park.
- The RV was not included in the warrant; Wilson obtained consent to search the RV by altering a Voluntary Consent to Search form, adding a statement that defendant would not be responsible for property inside the RV.
- Defendant signed the modified form, claiming he would not consent without that written assurance; suppression of RV evidence followed, alleging the consent was involuntary due to a promise of immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was consent to search the RV voluntary given an illusory immunity promise? | Marshall argues the promise of immunity tainted consent. | Marshall asserts the promise induced consent. | Yes; consent was involuntary due to the promise. |
| Was the admitted RV evidence harmless as to the theft conviction? | State contends evidence was harmless as other stolen property supported guilt. | Admission could have affected the verdict given defense theory. | Not harmless; error as to theft conviction. |
| Did the State prove inevitable discovery or should remand for that question? | State seeks remand to establish inevitable discovery. | Record insufficient; remand inappropriate. | Remand denied; inevitable discovery not established on record. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Weaver, 319 Or 212 (1994) (consent to search and voluntariness analysis; multiple consent genres)
- State v. Tanner, 236 Or App 423 (2010) (promises and inducements affect voluntariness; autonomy)
- State v. Goree, 151 Or App 621 (1997) (reliance on promised leniency and self-determination in confessions)
- Pollard v. State, 132 Or App 538 (1995) (illusory promises of immunity can compel suppression of statements)
- State v. Aguilar, 133 Or App 304 (1995) (promises of leniency and reasonable reliance in voluntariness context)
- State v. Ry/Guinto, 211 Or App 298 (2007) (absence of coercive promises in consent to search; autonomy considerations)
- State v. Rodal, 161 Or App 232 (1999) (consent and probable cause; shorter jail time if consented)