inevitable discovery doctrine in Oregon

2025Further, defendant concedes that the state satisfied the first prong of the inevitable discovery doctrine—that police in this case followed “certain proper and predictable investigatory procedures.” State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 225 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den, 475 US 1141 (1986).

2025Further, defendant concedes that the state satisfied the first prong of the inevitable discovery doctrine—that police in this case followed “certain proper and predictable investigatory procedures.” State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 225 , 709 P2d 225 (1985), cert den, 475 US 1141 (1986).

2025Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, “the state must show, by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that certain proper and predictable investigatory procedures would have been utilized in the instant case, and (2) that those procedures inevitably would have resulted in the discovery of the evidence in question.” State v Johnson, 340 Or 319 , 326- 27, 131 P3d 173 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2025Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, “the state must show, by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that certain proper and predictable investigatory procedures would have been utilized in the instant case, and (2) that those procedures inevitably would have resulted in the discovery of the evidence in question.” State v Johnson, 340 Or 319 , 326- 27, 131 P3d 173 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2003“To avail itself of the inevitable discovery rule, however, the state must establish that, in fact, following normal and predictable investigatory procedures, the evidence would have been discovered.” State v. Walker, 181 Or App 548, 553 , 47 P3d 65 (2002) (citing State v. Johnson, 177 Or App 244, 250-51 , 35 P3d 1024 (2001)).

2003“To avail itself of the inevitable discovery rule, however, the state must establish that, in fact, following normal and predictable investigatory procedures, the evidence would have been discovered.” State v. Walker, 181 Or App 548, 553 , 47 P3d 65 (2002) (citing State v. Johnson, 177 Or App 244, 250-51 , 35 P3d 1024 (2001)).

1978But see, State v. Lloyd, 22 Or. App. 254 , 538 P.2d 1278 (1975). [4] The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule was codified in 1973, at ORS 133.683, and explained by this court in State v. Garrison, 21 Or. App. 155, 157 , 534 P.2d 210 , rev. den. (1975); see also, State v. Paz, 31 Or. App. 851 , 572 P.2d 1036 (1977), rev. den. 282 Or. 189 (1978). [5] Defendant testified that she doubted she would have given a statement to the police before talking with her lawyer, had she known she was going to be arrested. [6] Mattingly allegedly was with Umscheid at the 7-Eleven store when

1978But see, State v. Lloyd, 22 Or. App. 254 , 538 P.2d 1278 (1975). [4] The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule was codified in 1973, at ORS 133.683, and explained by this court in State v. Garrison, 21 Or. App. 155, 157 , 534 P.2d 210 , rev. den. (1975); see also, State v. Paz, 31 Or. App. 851 , 572 P.2d 1036 (1977), rev. den. 282 Or. 189 (1978). [5] Defendant testified that she doubted she would have given a statement to the police before talking with her lawyer, had she known she was going to be arrested. [6] Mattingly allegedly was with Umscheid at the 7-Eleven store when

2026Inevitable discovery has not yet been applied to evidence derived from an immunized statement, although its application has been assumed. 9 The state argued in closing: “This was a proceeding that had to do with the rape and murder of [TL’s] daughter.” See Oatney II, 275 Or App at 20 n 5 (“Because petitioner has not raised the issue, we assume that the inevitable discovery doctrine can properly apply to a statement, rather than physical evidence.”).

2016Oatney v. Premo, 275 Or App 185, 220 , 369 P3d 387 (2015).

1981The nature of the causal relationship between unlawful police action and subsequently obtained evidence, which triggers the exclusionary rule, was. considered in the leading case of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471 , 83 S Ct 407 , 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963), in which the United States Supreme Court elaborated on the applicability of Silverthome, and the "fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

1981The nature of the causal relationship between unlawful police action and subsequently obtained evidence, which triggers the exclusionary rule, was. considered in the leading case of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471 , 83 S Ct 407 , 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963), in which the United States Supreme Court elaborated on the applicability of Silverthome, and the "fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

2021We have described the relevant analysis as follows: “To satisfy its burden under the inevitable-discovery doctrine, the state [is] required to show by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that certain proper and predictable *210 investigatory procedures would have been utilized in the instant case, and (2) that those procedures inevitably would have resulted in the discovery of the evidence in question.” State v. Hensley, 281 Or App 523, 535 , 383 P3d 333 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2021We have described the relevant analysis as follows: “To satisfy its burden under the inevitable-discovery doctrine, the state [is] required to show by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that certain proper and predictable *210 investigatory procedures would have been utilized in the instant case, and (2) that those procedures inevitably would have resulted in the discovery of the evidence in question.” State v. Hensley, 281 Or App 523, 535 , 383 P3d 333 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2021State v. Steele, 290 Or App 675, 681 , 414 P3d 458 (2018) (“The inevitable discovery doctrine permits the state to purge the taint of illegally obtained evidence by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that such evidence inevitably would have been discovered, *675 III.

2021State v. Steele, 290 Or App 675, 681 , 414 P3d 458 (2018) (“The inevitable discovery doctrine permits the state to purge the taint of illegally obtained evidence by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that such evidence inevitably would have been discovered, *675 III.

2016Further still, the state argued that, “even if [the] entry was not justified under the emergency aid doctrine [G’s] statements and associated evidence should not be suppressed” because, under State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 , 115 P3d 908 (2005), and, specifically, the inevitable discovery doctrine, as explained in State v. Taylor, 250 Or App 90 , 279 P3d 254 (2012), “the investigation of [G’s] injuries was inevitable because the officers would have returned to investigate possible charges of domestic violence.” At the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress, the trial court first ruled that the offi

2016Further still, the state argued that, “even if [the] entry was not justified under the emergency aid doctrine [G’s] statements and associated evidence should not be suppressed” because, under State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 , 115 P3d 908 (2005), and, specifically, the inevitable discovery doctrine, as explained in State v. Taylor, 250 Or App 90 , 279 P3d 254 (2012), “the investigation of [G’s] injuries was inevitable because the officers would have returned to investigate possible charges of domestic violence.” At the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress, the trial court first ruled that the offi

2016However, the state urges us to apply the material witness exception to the warrant requirement that the Oregon Supreme Court articulated in State v. Fair, 353 Or 588 , 302 P3d 417 (2013), as an alternative ground for affirmance under Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634 , 20 P3d 180 (2001) (allowing this court to affirm on alternate grounds if certain requirements are met).

2016However, the state urges us to apply the material witness exception to the warrant requirement that the Oregon Supreme Court articulated in State v. Fair, 353 Or 588 , 302 P3d 417 (2013), as an alternative ground for affirmance under Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634 , 20 P3d 180 (2001) (allowing this court to affirm on alternate grounds if certain requirements are met).

2016However, the state urges us to apply the material witness exception to the warrant requirement that the Oregon Supreme Court articulated in State v. Fair, 353 Or 588 , 302 P3d 417 (2013), as an alternative ground for affirmance under Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634 , 20 P3d 180 (2001) (allowing this court to affirm on alternate grounds if certain requirements are met).

2016However, the state urges us to apply the material witness exception to the warrant requirement that the Oregon Supreme Court articulated in State v. Fair, 353 Or 588 , 302 P3d 417 (2013), as an alternative ground for affirmance under Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634 , 20 P3d 180 (2001) (allowing this court to affirm on alternate grounds if certain requirements are met).

2016Further still, the state argued that, “even if [the] entry was not justified under the emergency aid doctrine [G’s] statements and associated evidence should not be suppressed” because, under State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 , 115 P3d 908 (2005), and, specifically, the inevitable discovery doctrine, as explained in State v. Taylor, 250 Or App 90 , 279 P3d 254 (2012), “the investigation of [G’s] injuries was inevitable because the officers would have returned to investigate possible charges of domestic violence.” At the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress, the trial court first ruled that the offi

2016Further still, the state argued that, “even if [the] entry was not justified under the emergency aid doctrine [G’s] statements and associated evidence should not be suppressed” because, under State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 , 115 P3d 908 (2005), and, specifically, the inevitable discovery doctrine, as explained in State v. Taylor, 250 Or App 90 , 279 P3d 254 (2012), “the investigation of [G’s] injuries was inevitable because the officers would have returned to investigate possible charges of domestic violence.” At the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress, the trial court first ruled that the offi

2014Rather, the state must show that the evidence “would have been discovered, absent the illegality, by proper and predictable investigatory procedures.” Id.

2014In this context, “indirect” fruit refers to “evidence [that] was acquired by the police after some initial Fourth Amendment violation.” United States v. Crews, 445 US 463, 471 , 100 S Ct 1244 , 63 L Ed 2d 537 (1980) (emphasis in original). *496 There are three recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule: (1) the inevitable discovery exception; (2) the independent source exception; and (3) the attenuation exception. 4 United States v. Smith, 155 F3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir 1998).

2014In this context, “indirect” fruit refers to “evidence [that] was acquired by the police after some initial Fourth Amendment violation.” United States v. Crews, 445 US 463, 471 , 100 S Ct 1244 , 63 L Ed 2d 537 (1980) (emphasis in original). *496 There are three recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule: (1) the inevitable discovery exception; (2) the independent source exception; and (3) the attenuation exception. 4 United States v. Smith, 155 F3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir 1998).

2006Id. at 375-76 .

2003“To avail itself of the inevitable discovery rule, however, the state must establish that, in fact, following normal and predictable investigatory procedures, the evidence would have been discovered.” State v. Walker, 181 Or App 548, 553 , 47 P3d 65 (2002) (citing State v. Johnson, 177 Or App 244, 250-51 , 35 P3d 1024 (2001)).

2003“To avail itself of the inevitable discovery rule, however, the state must establish that, in fact, following normal and predictable investigatory procedures, the evidence would have been discovered.” State v. Walker, 181 Or App 548, 553 , 47 P3d 65 (2002) (citing State v. Johnson, 177 Or App 244, 250-51 , 35 P3d 1024 (2001)).

1994ORS 133.683; State v. Schellhorn, 95 Or App 297, 302-03 , 769 P2d 221 (1989).

1994ORS 133.683; State v. Schellhorn, 95 Or App 297, 302-03 , 769 P2d 221 (1989).

1989Inevitably the material would have been discovered.” 5 Because we conclude that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply in this case, we do not address the question of whether opening the purse and unzipping the side pocket would have been permissible during an inventory process. 6 The state relies on ORS 133.683 as the codification of the inevitable discovery doctrine in Oregon and does not assert that the common law doctrine remains regarding primary evidence discovered during an illegal search. 7 This court made a similar distinction and reached the same conclusion in State v. Cros

1989Inevitably the material would have been discovered.” 5 Because we conclude that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply in this case, we do not address the question of whether opening the purse and unzipping the side pocket would have been permissible during an inventory process. 6 The state relies on ORS 133.683 as the codification of the inevitable discovery doctrine in Oregon and does not assert that the common law doctrine remains regarding primary evidence discovered during an illegal search. 7 This court made a similar distinction and reached the same conclusion in State v. Cros