State v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Brown

125 P.3d 1279, 203 Or. App. 616

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 4, 2006

Docket2003-01946A, 2003-01946B; A122610

StatusPublished

This text of 125 P.3d 1279 (State v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brown, 125 P.3d 1279, 203 Or. App. 616 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Police officers searched defendants’ home pursuant to a warrant authorizing a search but not a seizure of evidence. The trial court concluded that, under State v. Miller, 188 Or App 514, 72 P3d 643, rev den, 336 Or 146 (2003), such a warrant was invalid on its face and thus granted defendants’ motion to suppress. The state appeals.

After the trial court granted defendants’ motion, we held in State v. Carter, 200 Or App 262, 267, 113 P3d 969 (2005), rev allowed, 340 Or 106 (2006), that a warrant may validly authorize a search without a seizure and that “the lawfulness of the separate invasion of privacy occasioned by seizing items * * *, in the absence of authorization in the warrant itself, may be analyzed by reference to the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.” (Emphasis in original.) There, we remanded to the trial court to determine whether the evidence fell within the plain view exception. Id. at 268. Here, the trial court found that “ [m] ost of the evidence the defense seeks to suppress, including all of the methamphetamine that was seized by the police during the search, would fall within the ‘plain view’ exception” if that exception applied. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for it to determine which items were in plain view.

Defendants cross-appeal, assigning as error the admission of evidence found during a search of a shed on the property of defendant Brown’s mother. We affirm the trial court’s decision on that issue without discussion.

On appeal, order of suppression vacated and remanded; affirmed on cross-appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Police officers searched defendants’ home pursuant to a warrant authorizing a search but not a seizure of evidence. The trial court concluded that, under State v. Miller, 188 Or App 514, 72 P3d 643, rev den, 336 Or 146 (2003), such a warrant was invalid on its face and thus granted defendants’ motion to suppress. The state appeals.

After the trial court granted defendants’ motion, we held in State v. Carter, 200 Or App 262, 267, 113 P3d 969 (2005), rev allowed, 340 Or 106 (2006), that a warrant may validly authorize a search without a seizure and that “the lawfulness of the separate invasion of privacy occasioned by seizing items * * *, in the absence of authorization in the warrant itself, may be analyzed by reference to the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.” (Emphasis in original.) There, we remanded to the trial court to determine whether the evidence fell within the plain view exception. Id. at 268. Here, the trial court found that “ [m] ost of the evidence the defense seeks to suppress, including all of the methamphetamine that was seized by the police during the search, would fall within the ‘plain view’ exception” if that exception applied. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for it to determine which items were in plain view.

Defendants cross-appeal, assigning as error the admission of evidence found during a search of a shed on the property of defendant Brown’s mother. We affirm the trial court’s decision on that issue without discussion.

On appeal, order of suppression vacated and remanded; affirmed on cross-appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 P.3d 1279, 203 Or. App. 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack