explaining that officer’s inquiries about “various possible crimes” showed the officer “taking advantage of that misconduct in a way that likely had an effect on [the] defendant’s decision to consent”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that officer’s inquiries about “various possible crimes” showed the officer “taking advantage of that misconduct in a way that likely had an effect on [the] defendant’s decision to consent”
- concluding that there was exploitation, in part, “because the officer pursued several lines of inquiry ‘spurred by his observations of the contents of defendant’s purse during the unlawful seizure”'
- observing that “there was not simply ‘but for’ causation — -unlawful police conduct and then a request for consent” — where the unlawful police conduct “led directly” to the events ultimately resulting in the consent to search
- holding that evidence should have been suppressed where unlawful conduct led directly to observation that led to request to search
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BREWER, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the judgment of the court but, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in State v. Unger, *162 356 Or 59, 121-22 , 333 P3d 1009 (2014) (Brewer, J., dissenting), I am unable to join in the opinion of the court in this case.