Illegal Search and Seizure

On August 12, 2010, the Oregon Supreme Court issued the following opinion: State v. Ayles. http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S056577.htm, which held that a minimal factual nexus between a defendant’s consent to search and his unlawful detainment exists, and evidence obtained pursuant to that search must be suppressed, when the illegal seizure occurs simultaneous to the consent.

What does this mean?

In this case, the defendant appealed his conviction of methamphetamine possession, arguing that his consent to search was the product of an unlawful seizure.

Defendant was a passenger in a car, when the officer asked for his ID and consent to search his backpack. The officer found methamphetamines, and arrested defendant. At trial, Defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained after Hunt took his identification on the basis that he was unlawfully detained because Hunt had no reasonable suspicion that Defendant was committing a crime or was a threat to Hunt’s safety.

The Supreme Court held that a minimal factual nexus between Defendant’s consent to search and his unlawful detainment exists when the illegal seizure occurs simultaneous to the consent. Further, Miranda warnings alone were not a sufficient

“intervening circumstance” to attenuate the taint of the unlawful seizure, as Defendant’s statements were affected by the unlawful seizure due to temporal proximity. The Court held that the evidence from the search should have been suppressed. (Summarized by Mercedes Rhoden for Willamette Law Online – Willamette University College of Law) http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/wlo.