State v. Unger
252 Or. App. 478
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant was convicted of two counts of manufacture of cocaine and two counts of endangering the welfare of a minor in Oregon circuit court.
- Officers conducted a knock-and-talk without a warrant after receiving drug activity reports about the residence.
- Officers approached via front and lower doors; a fourth officer knocked at a back sliding glass door and Defendant answered.
- Defendant permitted entry after stating he would robe and after discussing with officers, and the officers entered the home to search.
- During the search, officers recovered a baggie with methamphetamine residue and sought consent to continue searching; Defendant refused to sign a consent form but verbally allowed continued search.
- A field test later indicated methamphetamine; officers obtained a warrant later the same day, leading to additional evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the backyard entry violated Article I, §9 | State contends there was no warrant or exception justifying the backyard entry. | Duncan contends the backyard entry was a trespass that violated his rights and tainted consent. | Yes; backyard entry violated Article I, §9 and tainted consent. |
| Whether the tainted consent invalidated entry/search of the house | State argues consent can validate a search if independent of illegality. | Duncan argues consent was product of illegal conduct and thus invalid. | Yes; consent obtained as a result of the unlawful trespass is invalid, requiring suppression. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (2005) (standard for reviewing suppression decisions; minimal nexus and independent-source analysis)
- State v. Davis, 295 Or 227 (1983) (warrantless searches require justified exceptions)
- State v. White, 211 Or App 210 (2007) (narrowly drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement; consents as exceptions)
- State v. Ohling, 70 Or App 249 (1984) (trespass to backyard as search; no implied consent for back approaches)
- State v. Somfleth, 168 Or App 414 (2000) (curtilage intrusion considered trespass absent privilege or consent)
- State v. Pierce, 226 Or App 336 (2009) (front/backyard approach limits implied consent standards)
- State v. Ayles, 348 Or 622 (2010) (minimal factual nexus between illegal conduct and consent; ongoing illegality taints consent)
- State v. Tanner, 304 Or 312 (1987) (exclusionary rule applicability in Oregon)