|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|State of Oregon v. Jeffery Lorenzo|
|Supreme Court Case 2|
|Rolf Moan on behalf of the State of Oregon|
Peter Gartlan on behalf of Jeffery Lorenzo
Statement of Issues:
|State of Oregon v. Jeffery Lorenzo (S060969) (A145826) (appeal from Washington County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 252 Or App 263, 287 P3d 1133 (2012)).|
The State of Oregon has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed and remanded a trial court ruling that denied a motion to suppress evidence filed by defendant Jeffery Lorenzo.
On review, the issues are:
(1) If police conduct has violated a defendant's rights under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, but if that conduct ceased before a defendant voluntarily consented to a search, what must the defendant show to establish a "minimal factual nexus" between the illegality and his consent?
(2) If a defendant does establish a minimal factual nexus under the circumstances described above, how can the state overcome that showing?
(3) Can an initial illegal entry justify suppression of evidence found during a consent search under these circumstances: an officer illegally reached inside defendant's apartment door to knock on his bedroom door, but retreated before defendant emerged; any illegal entry by police was completed and not ongoing when officers asked for consent to enter; and the officers did not learn anything from the illegality that prompted them to seek consent to search or that they used to influence defendant's decision to consent?
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: