|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|State of Oregon v. Clark Allen Bailey|
|Newport Performing Arts Center|
|Anne Kimiko Fujita Munsey on behalf of Clark Allen Bailey|
Anna Joyce and Peenesh Shah on behalf of the State of Oregon
|*WILL NOT BE WEBCAST|
Statement of Issues:
|State of Oregon v. Clark Allen Bailey (S061647) (A148109) (appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 258 Or App 18, 308 P3d 368 (2013)).|
Defendant Clark Allen Bailey has been granted review of a divided Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence that the police discovered when they conducted a search incident to arrest after they arrested defendant on a warrant, the existence of which they had discovered during their unlawful detention of defendant.
On review, the issues are:
(1) Where the police illegally seize a person for the purpose of discovering his or her identity, does Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution require suppression of evidence obtained when the police learn the person's name and use it to check the person for warrants and to arrest him or her on an outstanding warrant?
(2) Where the police illegally seize a person for the purpose of discovering his or her identity and checking for warrants, is the federal deterrence rationale underlying suppression of evidence as a remedy for violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution thwarted by a per se rule that any illegal seizure can be justified after-the-fact by the discovery of an arrest warrant?
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: