State v. Musser, 335 P.3d 814

Around 10:00 p.m. an officer patrolling an alley behind a shopping center ordered Musser to stop and speak with him; the officer conceded he lacked reasonable suspicion, making the stop unconstitutional.
During the stop (which lasted about an hour and culminated in a citation), Musser produced identification from her purse; the officer saw two Crown Royal pouches inside the purse.
The officer, having suspected recent stimulant use from Musser’s demeanor, asked for and obtained consent to search the pouches; he found drug paraphernalia and later, after a second consent to search the remainder of the purse, methamphetamine.
Musser moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search consent was produced by exploitation of the unlawful stop; the trial court denied suppression and convicted her after a stipulated facts trial; the Court of Appeals reversed. The state conceded the stop lacked reasonable suspicion on review.
The Supreme Court applied the totality-of-the-circumstances exploitation analysis from State v. Unger and concluded the police had exploited the unlawful stop to obtain consent; the evidence was suppressed and the conviction reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence obtained via consent following an unlawful stop must be suppressed as the product of police exploitation	State: voluntary consent generally validates the search; if consent is voluntary the evidence is admissible	Musser: consent obtained during the unlawful stop was the product of exploitation and must be suppressed	Court: Use Unger totality test; here the unlawful stop led directly to ID request, observation of pouches, and search consent — suppression required
Whether a voluntary-consent finding alone defeats an exploitation challenge	State: voluntariness alone cures the taint of prior illegality	Musser: voluntary consent given during an unlawful detention is not dispositive; exploitation may still require suppression	Court: Voluntariness is important but not dispositive; consider temporal proximity, nature/purpose/flagrancy of misconduct, and intervening/mitigating circumstances — voluntariness did not save the search here

State v. Unger, 356 Or. 59, 333 P.3d 1009 (Or. 2014) (adopting a totality-of-the-circumstances exploitation test; voluntariness is important but not dispositive)
State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7, 115 P.3d 908 (Or. 2005) (earlier exploitation framework requiring a causal nexus between illegality and consent)
State v. Lorenzo, 356 Or. 134, 335 P.3d 821 (Or. 2014) (applied Unger factors to uphold consent after limited unlawful entry made for welfare check)
State v. Hemenway, 353 Or. 129, 295 P.3d 617 (Or. 2013) (court considered modifying Hall’s emphasis on temporal proximity)
State v. Ayles, 348 Or. 622, 237 P.3d 805 (Or. 2010) (recognized causal link between unlawful police conduct and consent-based evidence supporting suppression)
State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or. 610, 227 P.3d 695 (Or. 2010) (similar recognition of causal exploitation warranting suppression)