State v. Parnell, 278 Or. App. 260

Postal inspector alerted OSP to a package addressed to defendant's address; two residences existed at that location. Detectives split up to contact each home.
Detective Mogle and Inspector Helton approached the second house; Mogle knocked, defendant answered, identified himself as an OMMA grower, and invited Mogle and Helton inside to see the grow.
Detectives Boice and Sitowski went around toward the back of the house and entered the unfenced backyard to "watch" the rear; the trial court found that constituted a trespass.
Inside, Mogle observed marijuana in plain view and Helton opened the package (with defendant's consent) and found $25,000; defendant then made inculpatory statements and consented to a broader search of the residence.
Defendant moved to suppress all evidence and statements as tainted by the officers' prior trespass; the trial court found the initial consent to enter preceded the trespass and denied suppression, but made no factual finding as to whether the later consent to search the rest of the home was tainted.
The court of appeals vacated and remanded for the trial court to make findings about whether the trespass affected defendant's subsequent consent to search beyond what was in plain view.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether initial consent to enter home was tainted by officers' trespass	Initial consent valid; Mogle lawfully approached front and observed marijuana before any trespass	Consent to enter was tainted because defendant had seen Boice and Sitowski trespass before inviting officers in	Court held initial consent to enter was given before the trespass and therefore not tainted; evidence in plain view after that entry admissible
Whether later consent to search remainder of home was tainted by prior trespass	State did not separately argue but relied on initial valid consent and plain-view observations	Later consent invalid because it came during/after officers' misconduct and was the product of the trespass	Court vacated and remanded because trial court made no findings about timing/effect of trespass on the subsequent consent; remand required for factfinding
Preservation: challenge to opening the package	State: issue not preserved because defendant did not press package-opening argument at hearing	Defendant: written motion referenced "any subsequent consent," which includes opening package	Court held the package-opening challenge was not preserved for appeal and declined to address it

State v. Farrar, 252 Or App 256 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Regnier, 229 Or App 525 (appellate deference to supported trial-court findings)
Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485 (presumption about how a trial court decided facts when findings are incomplete)
Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209 (purpose and policies underlying preservation rules)
State v. Walker, 350 Or 540 (preservation does not require repeating every written argument orally)
State v. Olinger, 240 Or App 215 (remand required when trial court did not rule or make findings on whether consent was affected by prior illegality)
State v. Jackson, 296 Or 430 (remand for factfinding when trial-court findings do not resolve which version of events occurred)