inevitable discovery doctrine in Oregon

2012The inevitable discovery doctrine applies when the evidence in question “would have been discovered, absent [any] illegality, by proper and predictable police investigatory procedures.” State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 225 , 709 P2d 225 (1985) (citing Nix v. Williams, 467 US 431 , 104 S Ct 2501 , 81 L Ed 2d 377 (1984)).

2012The inevitable discovery doctrine applies when the evidence in question “would have been discovered, absent [any] illegality, by proper and predictable police investigatory procedures.” State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 225 , 709 P2d 225 (1985) (citing Nix v. Williams, 467 US 431 , 104 S Ct 2501 , 81 L Ed 2d 377 (1984)).

2025Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, “the state must show, by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that cer- tain proper and predictable investigatory procedures would have been utilized in the instant case, and (2) that those pro- cedures 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 cer- tain proper and predictable investigatory procedures would have been utilized in the instant case, and (2) that those pro- cedures 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)).

1978The 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 P2d 210 , rev den (1975); see also, State v. Paz, 31 Or App 851 , 572 P2d 1036 (1977), rev den 282 Or 189 (1978).

1978The 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 P2d 210 , rev den (1975); see also, State v. Paz, 31 Or App 851 , 572 P2d 1036 (1977), rev den 282 Or 189 (1978).

2025The state further contended that it met its burden on the second prong—whether the evidence would have been discovered, i.e., whether the evidence would have still been in the hotel room when the warrant was executed— because the room was secured by a keycard and the “three people associated with the room and who had access were either in custody or had left the area and never returned.” Defendant argued that the state could not prove that the evidence would have remained in the room when Cite as 344 Or App 75 (2025) 81 the warrant was executed because defendant’s brother was unaccounted for a

2025The state further contended that it met its burden on the second prong—whether the evidence would have been discovered, i.e., whether the evidence would have still been in the hotel room when the warrant was executed— because the room was secured by a keycard and the “three people associated with the room and who had access were either in custody or had left the area and never returned.” Defendant argued that the state could not prove that the evidence would have remained in the room when Cite as 344 Or App 75 (2025) 81 the warrant was executed because defendant’s brother was unaccounted for a

2023Cite as 329 Or App 588 (2023) 627 court’s receipt of the jury’s guilty verdicts.

2023Cite as 329 Or App 588 (2023) 627 court’s receipt of the jury’s guilty verdicts.

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 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), in which the United States Supreme Court elaborated on the applicability of Silverthorne, 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 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), in which the United States Supreme Court elaborated on the applicability of Silverthorne, and the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.

2025The second motion challenged the subsequent Cite as 337 Or App 234 (2025) 239 search warrant for the smartphone and the affidavits result- ing from the warranted smartphone search.5 The third motion, filed shortly before trial, challenged the 73-day delay in seeking a warrant.

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 preponder- ance of the evidence, that such evidence inevitably would have been discovered, Cite as 312 Or App 666 (2021) 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 preponder- ance of the evidence, that such evidence inevitably would have been discovered, Cite as 312 Or App 666 (2021) 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 preponder- ance of the evidence, that such evidence inevitably would have been discovered, Cite as 312 Or App 666 (2021) 675 III.

2018The 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, absent the illegality, by proper and predictable police investigatory procedures." State v. Miller , 300 Or. 203 , 225, 709 P.2d 225 (1985), cert. den. , 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986).

2018The 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, absent the illegality, by proper and predictable police investigatory procedures." State v. Miller , 300 Or. 203 , 225, 709 P.2d 225 (1985), cert. den. , 475 U.S. 1141 , 106 S.Ct. 1793 , 90 L.Ed.2d 339 (1986).

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

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

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

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

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)).