403 P.3d 528
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant was arrested and indicted for felon-in-possession, unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, and methamphetamine possession while on probation for a prior felon-in-possession conviction.
- Defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, asserting the challenged "stop and seizure" and searches of his residence and bedroom were warrantless and therefore per se unreasonable under Article I, § 9 of the Oregon Constitution.
- The motion cited State v. Miller and Article I, § 9 and included a brief arguing that a bare allegation of a warrantless search shifts the burden to the state to justify the search.
- At a scheduling/hearing exchange, the court expressed concern the motion lacked sufficient factual specificity; the prosecutor told the court she understood counsel would contest entry into the apartment and entry into the bedroom.
- The trial court struck the motion sua sponte for failure to comply with UTCR 4.060(1) (motion did not "adequately apprise" the court of the issues) and later entered convictions and revoked probation.
- On appeal the appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the motion met UTCR 4.060(1) and, under Miller, a warrantless-search allegation is sufficient to shift the burden to the state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly struck the suppression motion for noncompliance with UTCR 4.060(1) | Motion was too vague to apprise court and state which searches/seizures and legal theories were being litigated | Motion cited Article I, § 9 and Miller; a bare allegation that a search was warrantless and therefore per se unreasonable satisfies UTCR 4.060(1) and shifts burden to the state | Reversed: motion satisfied UTCR 4.060(1); allegation of warrantless search was sufficient to require the state to prove an exception to the warrant requirement |
| Scope of specificity required in a suppression motion | Court must be able to identify each search/seizure challenged; vague or "shotgun" motions may be struck | Under Miller, defendant need not plead detailed facts; alleging a warrantless search (with authority) is enough to frame the issue | The court recognized some motions might need more detail if ambiguous, but here no such ambiguity; Miller controls and minimal pleading sufficed |
| Effect of striking motion on later proceedings | State urged limited remand: hold suppression hearing, new trial only if suppression granted | Defendant sought full consideration of suppression motion and reversal/remand | Appellate court left scope of proceedings on remand to trial court discretion; convictions and probation revocation reversed and remanded |
| Whether UTCR 4.060 requires affidavit or detailed factual allegations like the former Lane County rule | State argued current UTCR requires sufficient factual detail; trial court treated motion as noncompliant | Defendant argued UTCR does not require additional factual allegations beyond citation of authority and assertion of warrantless search | Court held UTCR does not require detailed factual allegations; a motion asserting a warrantless search and citing authority sufficiently apprises parties and shifts burden to the state |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Miller, 524 P.2d 1399 (Or. 1974) (motion alleging warrantless search, supported by affidavit, is sufficient to place burden on state to justify search)
- State v. Baker, 260 P.3d 476 (Or. 2011) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; state bears burden to prove exception)
- State v. Parnell, 373 P.3d 1252 (Or. App. 2016) (motion to suppress frames issues and notifies state of contentions to be addressed)
- State v. Johnson/Imel, 519 P.2d 1053 (Or. App. 1974) (motions to suppress should specify grounds with particularity to give notice to state and court)