State v. Walker
258 P.3d 1228
| Or. | 2011Background
- Warrant to search a house for stolen burglary property; no party named in the warrant.
- Police encountered defendant in Baker's residence during execution; all occupants were moved outside and Miranda warnings given.
- Purse found in Baker's bedroom was believed to belong to defendant; defendant consented to search of purse.
- Search of purse yielded a methamphetamine pipe; field test positive; defendant charged with unlawful possession.
- Defendant moved to suppress arguing scope of the warrant and involuntary consent; suppression denied at trial; Court of Appeals affirmed on preservation grounds.
- Supreme Court granted review to address preservation and merits of the scope issue under Article I, section 9.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the scope of a premises warrant includes a nonresident guest's personal effects. | Walker contends the purse is outside the warrant's scope as a nonresident guest's belongings. | Walker asserts the warrant authorizes only premises and listed items, not guests' personal effects. | Preservation of the scope issue; the issue is preserved and court assesses merits later (defense bears burden to prove scope limitations). |
| Who bears the burden to prove the lawfulness of a search conducted under a warrant when the defendant challenges scope. | Walker argues the state bears burden to show purse search within the warrant. | Walker contends burden should rest with state to prove search was authorized by the warrant. | Burden lies with the defendant to prove unlawfulness of a warranted search; if warranted, defendant must show the search exceeded scope. |
| Merits of whether the purse search was authorized by the premises warrant given the defendant's relationship to Baker and the guests' status. | State contends the purse was within scope because it could contain listed items and was on the premises. | Walker argues the personal effects of a guest may be outside the premises warrant's scope absent particularized authority. | Record silent on key facts (defendant’s relationship to Baker, possession of purse); court reserves decision and affirms on other grounds. |
| Whether the case should be analyzed under Article I, section 9 or the Fourth Amendment for scope concerns. | State relies on premises-warrant analysis; asserts scope within warrant. | Walker relies on state constitution analysis; argues scope limits under Article I, section 9. | Court does not decide which analysis governs due to insufficiency of record on key facts; preserves and affirms on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 295 Or. 227 (1983) (state bears burden to show warrant exceptions during warrantless entries; with a warrant, defendant bears burden to prove unlawfulness)
- State v. Johnson, 335 Or. 511 (2003) (burden on defendant to show unlawfulness of a warranted search)
- State v. Sargent, 323 Or. 455 (1996) (burden allocation in suppression motions under warrants)
- State v. Reid, 190 Or.App. 49 (2003) (preservation and analysis under state constitution when addressing scope)
- State v. Mendez, 308 Or. 9 (1989) (previous rule about differentiating state vs federal analysis deemed wrong; focus on preservation sufficiency)
- State v. Parkins, 346 Or. 333 (2009) (preservation practicality in criminal cases)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (premises warrant does not authorize searching persons merely present)