# State v. Musser

> Oregon Supreme Court · August 28, 2014 · 356 Or. 148

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803159

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. DEBORAH ANN MUSSER, Respondent on Review
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 28, 2014
- **Citations:** 356 Or. 148; 335 P.3d 814; 2013 Ore. LEXIS 1090
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brewer
- **Judges:** Balmer, Walters, Baldwin, Brewer
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803159

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- noting, with respect to the “purpose” of the misconduct, that, during the unlawful stop, the officer “eventually focus [ed] — as [the] defendant well understood — on drug possession” (emphasis added)

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803159. Public record. Not legal advice.