State v. Rhyne

When a Defendant challenges the validity of their subsequent statement or consent to search, “the State carries the burden of demonstrating that the consent was voluntary and not the product of police exploitation of an illegal search or seizure.” State v. Unger, 356 Or 59, 74-75, 333 P3d 1009 (2014).

Defendant appealed from a conviction of delivery of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial to suppress evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that a law enforcement officer unlawfully extended their original lawful seizure without reasonable suspicion. Defendant argued the unlawful extension, along with the unlawful seizure of his knife, should have made his subsequent statement of having methamphetamine in his pocket inadmissible. In response, the State argued the extension of the original seizure was justified based on the totality of the circumstances. The State also argued that the Defendant’s statement was not tainted by the unlawful seizure of the knife. When a Defendant challenges the validity of their subsequent statement or consent to search, “the State carries the burden of demonstrating that the consent was voluntary and not the product of police exploitation of an illegal search or seizure.” State v. Unger, 356 Or 59, 74-75, 333 P3d 1009 (2014). The Court concluded that the State carried its burden in showing that the unlawful seizure of the knife did not induce Defendant’s subsequent statement and also concluded that the trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

 Affirmed.