State v. Jackson

Evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search should be inadmissible - even if said evidence is acquired from a consented search that resulted from unlawful search.

Defendant appealed a conviction of unlawful delivery of marijuana contending that the evidence was obtained due to an unlawful stop and subsequent consent achieved through said unlawful stop which violated his Oregon constitutional rights. Defendant's motion to have evidence suppressed was denied at the trial court level. This Court reiterates that a stop occurs when a police officer tells a person that he committed some violation or crime or that the officer is investigating a crime that a person could be cited or arrested for. When the officer in this case began speaking to Defendant, he unambiguously declared that he had seen Defendant commit a traffic violation. The Court held that this interaction was a stop. The Court further held that the state did not show sufficient facts to prove probable cause for the stop, making the stop unlawful. Since the consent to search the trunk of the automobile was a direct result of the unlawful stop, the Court concluded that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. Count 1 reversed and remanded, otherwise affirmed.