State v. Bailey

Discovery of an outstanding warrant for a defendant's arrest purges the taint of prior unlawful police conduct that might otherwise require suppression of evidence obtained as a result of an arrest on the warrant.

Defendant appealed a conviction for delivery of cocaine, possession of cocaine and tampering with physical evidence. Defendant was a passenger in a suspicious vehicle that was stopped by police. Defendant refused to identify himself to the officers; however, one officer was able to positively identify him. Officers discovered that Defendant had a felony warrant for his arrest. Officers also discovered that Defendant was hiding a plastic bag containing cocaine under his tongue. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence because he was unlawfully seized. Although the trial court found that Defendant was unlawfully seized, they denied his motion because evidence discovered after his arrest was admissible due to the discovery of the warrant. Defendant was convicted. On appeal, Defendant argued that he was unlawfully seized thus violating the Oregon Constitution and the United States Constitution. The Court rejected Defendant's argument based on the principle that when evidence is discovered as a result of an arrest under a valid warrant, any prior illegality that may have tainted the search is irrelevant. The trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss and did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights. Affirmed