|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|State of Oregon v. Mark Lawrence Unger|
|Supreme Court Case 1|
|Rolf Moan on behalf of State of Oregon |
Jason E. Thompson on behalf of Mark Lawrence Unger
Statement of Issues:
|State of Oregon v. Mark Lawrence Unger (S060888) (A144192) (appeal from Marion County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 252 Or App 478, 287 P3d 1196 (2012)).|
The State of Oregon has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed and remanded a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence filed by defendant Mark Lawrence Unger.
On review, the issues are:
(1) Did the "minimal factual nexus" test announced in State v. Hall, 339 Or 7, 25, 115 P3d 908 (2005), eliminate the requirement set out by this court in State v. Rodriguez, 317 Or 27, 854 P2d 399 (1993), that evidence seized pursuant to a defendant's voluntary consent to search following unlawful police conduct will be suppressed only if the police "exploited" (that is, traded on) their illegality to gain that consent?
(2) When a defendant consents to a police request to conduct a search of his home, is the fact that the police trespassed onto the curtilage -- thereby putting themselves in a position to ask for consent -- sufficient by itself under Hall to establish a "minimal factual nexus" (between the underlying police illegality and the defendant's consent) to shift the burden to the state to establish the absence of exploitation?
(3) If a defendant's voluntary consent to search following an unlawful police search is sufficient to establish a "minimal factual nexus" under Hall, how can the state satisfy its burden to show that the consent was not the product of exploitation?
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: