State v. Moore

Under ORS 136.432.1, a court cannot suppress relevant evidence, even if obtained in violation of statutory provision, unless there is an exception under the United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution; the rules of evidence governing privileges and the admission of hearsay; or, the rights of the press.

Defendant was charged with criminally negligent homicide concerning a head-on automobile collision where Defendant was under the influence. While at the hospital directly following the accident, Defendant gave blood and urine samples which he claimed he was coerced into giving, and cognitively unable to give voluntary consent. On remand from the Oregon Supreme Court, who reversed the initial ruling that the samples were not given voluntarily, this Court examined Defendant’s alternative arguments for why the evidence should not be admitted at trial. Defendant first argued that pain medication administered at the hospital left him unable to give voluntarily consent. The Court disagreed, stating the trial court's assertion that Defendant was not sufficiently impaired by the drugs was supported by the evidence. Defendant argued that the officer had no probable cause to arrest defendant for DUII, relying on ORS 813.100(1) which provides that a police officer must have reasonable grounds to ask for tests after a motor vehicular accident if he believes the arrested driver was under the influence at the time of the accident. Thus, Defendant equated reasonable suspicion with probable cause. The Court stated that even if this were the case, it would, at most, be a statutory violation subject to ORS 136.432.1, which, since no other reason for limitation of evidence was given, would invalidate the suppression anyway. Reversed and remanded.