State v. Lambert
338 P.3d 160, 265 Or.App. 742, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1322 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When police unlawfully seize evidence, the state bears the burden to prove that the evidence would have been inevitably discovered through proper and predictable investigatory procedures, and a remand for further factual findings on this doctrine is only appropriate if there is conflicting evidence in the existing record.
Facts:
- In August 2011, a facility owned by the Portland Water Bureau (PWB) was broken into, a large hole was cut into the perimeter fence, and a "4x4" decal was found near the hole, along with the theft of a pH pen and other items.
- On the night of October 14, 2011, PWB security observed a vehicle parked just outside the PWB site on public property and an unknown person moving inside one of the tents within the facility.
- Portland police responded to the scene, observed a Jeep Grand Cherokee concealed behind a row of trees, and found the lock on the PWB facility gate had been cut.
- Defendant was observed walking into one of the tents and eventually approaching the fence, and was subsequently arrested.
- Defendant’s Jeep Grand Cherokee was towed to a police impound lot, and a "hold" was placed on the vehicle to notify the police bureau’s burglary task force for future examination.
- Four days later, Officer Lobaugh, a member of the burglary task force, took the 4x4 decal discovered after the August break-in to the impound lot and discovered it fit exactly where a decal was missing on defendant’s Jeep.
- Officer Lobaugh subsequently applied for and obtained a search warrant for the Jeep's interior, and police discovered a red pH pen identical to the type stolen in the August break-in.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant filed two motions to suppress evidence before trial: one challenging the warranted search of his Jeep and another challenging the warrantless seizure (tow) of his vehicle.
- The trial court denied both motions, concluding that the warrantless tow of defendant’s vehicle was a lawful "administrative seizure" authorized by the Portland City Code.
- Defendant appealed the trial court's decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals, in its initial decision (State v. Lambert, 263 Or App 683 (2014)), held that the trial court erroneously denied defendant’s motion to suppress regarding the warrantless seizure, finding the administrative seizure exception inapplicable because suspicions of criminal activity played a part in the officer's decision to seize the vehicle.
- In that initial decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals vacated defendant’s convictions on Counts 2 and 3 and remanded the case for the trial court to consider whether the disputed evidence was "actually obtained" from the unlawful seizure or would have been inevitably discovered.
- Defendant petitioned the Oregon Court of Appeals for reconsideration of its initial decision, arguing that the disposition of vacating and remanding was incorrect.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Oregon Court of Appeals err in its initial decision to remand a case for the trial court to determine whether evidence, obtained following an unlawful vehicle seizure, would have been inevitably discovered, when the existing record did not contain conflicting evidence on that critical fact?
Opinions:
Majority - Garrett, J.
Yes, the Oregon Court of Appeals erred in its initial decision to vacate and remand for a determination of inevitable discovery because the existing record did not contain conflicting evidence requiring further factual findings. The court clarified that a remand for further factual findings on the inevitable discovery doctrine is only proper when the record contains potentially conflicting evidence that needs to be resolved by the trial court. Citing State v. Grover and State v. Marshall, the court emphasized the state's obligation to develop a record sufficient to substantiate any grounds for admitting evidence, particularly when challenging a presumption of taint arising from an unlawful seizure. The court reiterated that the inevitable discovery doctrine requires the state to prove that evidence "would have been discovered, absent the illegality, by proper and predictable investigatory procedures," not merely that it "might or could have been otherwise obtained," as established in State v. Miller. In this case, the unlawful towing of defendant's vehicle directly facilitated the discovery of the 4x4 decal match by providing Officer Lobaugh access to the vehicle at the impound lot. Since the state failed to demonstrate on the existing record that the evidence would have been inevitably discovered, and there was no conflicting evidence to warrant a remand, the evidence must be suppressed. Without the 4x4 decal match, the affidavit in support of the search warrant would not have established probable cause to believe that the specified items would be in defendant’s vehicle, rendering the subsequent search and discovery of the pH pen also inadmissible. The court also rejected the state's preservation argument, noting that once a defendant challenges evidence arising from an unlawful seizure, the burden shifts to the state to prove the evidence is nevertheless admissible, including by demonstrating an independent source or inevitable discovery, and the defendant is not required to affirmatively demonstrate the causal link between the unlawful seizure and the warranted search.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent standard for applying the inevitable discovery doctrine in Oregon, particularly in the context of unlawful seizures. It reinforces that the state bears a heavy burden to demonstrate that evidence would have been found through lawful means, not just that it could have been. The decision also underscores the importance of a fully developed record at the trial level for the state to justify the admission of evidence, limiting the appellate court's willingness to remand for speculative factual inquiries. This impacts future cases by discouraging piecemeal litigation of suppression issues and by ensuring that the inevitable discovery exception does not undermine the constitutional warrant requirement without clear proof of independent lawful discovery.
