State v. Ledbetter
768 P.2d 431, 95 Or App 187, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 140 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Consent to a search is not considered voluntary when it is obtained immediately following illegal police conduct, such as a custodial interrogation conducted without Miranda warnings, because the illegality taints the defendant's free will and imposes a greater burden on the state to prove voluntariness.
Facts:
- A Portland police officer observed the defendant, while driving her car, let a passenger out into a traffic lane, forcing another vehicle to brake abruptly.
- The officer approached the defendant's vehicle and asked for her driver's license, which she stated she did not have.
- As the defendant opened her purse to find identification, the officer saw a hunting knife in a sheath in plain view inside the purse.
- The officer seized the knife and informed the defendant that he was charging her with carrying a concealed weapon.
- Without administering Miranda warnings, the officer asked the defendant if she had any other weapons or drugs in her purse.
- After she denied having anything else, the officer asked for and received permission to search her purse.
- During the search, the officer found a small gold box, asked for and received permission to open it, and discovered two small bags inside, one of which contained methamphetamine.
- The defendant later testified that she consented because she felt she had no choice and that the officer would have searched the box anyway.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted in trial court for possession of a controlled substance.
- The defendant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence found in the box, arguing her consent to the search was not voluntary.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress.
- The state, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's suppression order to the intermediate court of appeals, with the defendant as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the totality of the circumstances, is a defendant's consent to a search considered voluntary when it is given after she is in custody for a separate offense and subjected to custodial interrogation without being advised of her Miranda rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Newman, J.
No. A defendant's consent to a search is not voluntary when it is tainted by preceding illegal police conduct, such as an un-Mirandized custodial interrogation. The court reasoned that once the officer informed the defendant she was being charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a reasonable person would have considered themselves in custody, triggering the requirement for Miranda warnings before any interrogation. The officer's subsequent questions about other weapons or drugs constituted interrogation, as they were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Because this interrogation was conducted without the required warnings, it was illegal police conduct. This illegality placed a 'greater burden' on the state to prove that the defendant's subsequent consent was a product of free will. Considering the totality of the circumstances—including the Miranda violation, the lack of information about her right to refuse consent, and the defendant's testimony—the state failed to meet this heightened burden, rendering the consent involuntary.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that consent to a search must be a product of free will, untainted by constitutional violations. It applies the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine to consent searches, where the 'poisonous tree' is the un-Mirandized custodial interrogation. The case establishes that a Miranda violation can invalidate subsequent consent, leading to the suppression of physical evidence, not just statements. It clarifies for future cases that when police engage in illegal conduct, the prosecution faces a significantly higher evidentiary burden to demonstrate that a defendant's consent was truly voluntary and not a result of the preceding illegality.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Ledbetter