Oregon Appellate Ct - Dec. 9, 2015

Revision as of 20:44, December 10, 2015

Request for Pro Se Representation May Be Denied If It Would Be Disruptive to the Orderly Conduct of a Trial

The trial court did not err by denying defendant's mid-trial request to represent himself when (1) defendant had been very disruptive throughout the state's case, with the judge twice before threatening to have defendant removed from the courtroom and (2) defendant first requested to represent himself when the state's case was almost complete and for reasons that would have been counter-productive to his case. While the judge did not make explicit findings about how disruptive self-representation would be, the record supports an implicit conclusion that it would be disruptive based on the judge's repeated conversations and the reasons for his denial. State v Hightower, 275 Or App 287 (2015).

Scope of Consent to Search - An Offer to "Search the Vehicle" for "Anything Concerning" Does Not Include the Search of a Fanny Pack Inside the Vehicle

A search based on consent may not exceed the scope permitted by the consent. Here, defendant was stopped for a traffic infraction; the officer asked whether there was anything in the car that the police should be concerned about; and defendant said "no" and told the officer he could "search the vehicle". The officer did search the vehicle as well as a fanny pack found under the passenger seat, in which there were drugs. The first step in determining the scope of consent is to look at the request for consent to search: "a general request for consent to search a car does not extend to closed containers in the car if no other circumstances reasonably indicate that the officers are searching for something that could be hidden in those containers." In this case, there was no actual request for consent, only a vague and open-ended question. Thus, "a reasonable person would not have understood the scope of the deputies’ interest in the car to extend to the contents of the zipped fanny pack found under the passenger’s seat". Since there weren't any contextual circumstances indicating that officers wanted to look for small items and there wasn't anything about defendant's statement indicating consent to meticulously search all closed containers, the scope of consent was limited and the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress. Also, the Miranda warnings that immediately followed the search did not purge the taint from defendant's admissions to possessing the drugs found in the search. The police conduct was purposeful and flagrant, the connection between the illegality and statements is direct and unavoidable; and:

"The illegal search put defendant in the no-win position of confessing to owning the fanny pack and drugs or incriminating, by process of elimination, the other passenger in the car. Without the illegal search, defendant would not have been in that position. Therefore, the police exploited the illegal search to gain an advantage over defendant"

Reversed and remanded. State v DeLong, 275 Or App 295 (2015).

Exploitation Lowell

Text Messages Lowell

Civil Commitment - Intellectual Disability - A Hearing May Not Proceed Without an Evaluation

State v R.E.G., 275 Or App 239 (2015)