State v. DeJong

“[I]n suppression hearings involving a search pursuant to a warrant allegedly tainted by earlier police illegality, the defendant bears the initial burden of production, while the state bears the ultimate burden of persuasion.” State v. James, 339 Or. 476, 490 (2005). Consequently, a defendant has the initial burden to establish a factual nexus between the prior illegal conduct by the police and evidence gained prior to a valid warrant. State v. Johnson, 334 Or. 511(2003).

Defendant appealed a conviction for unlawful delivery of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error towards the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that before application for a search warrant, police unlawfully seized Defendant’s house and that the State failed to show that discovered evidence was not tainted by the seizure. The State responded that even without the pre-warrant seizure, the evidence in question would have been discovered through a lawfully-issued search warrant. “[I]n suppression hearings involving a search pursuant to a warrant allegedly tainted by earlier police illegality, the defendant bears the initial burden of production, while the state bears the ultimate burden of persuasion.” State v. James, 339 Or. 476, 490 (2005). Consequently, a defendant has the initial burden to establish a factual nexus between the prior illegal conduct by the police and evidence gained prior to a valid warrant. State v. Johnson, 334 Or. 511(2003). The Court found that the Defendant had not established the required minimum factual nexus between the unlawful seizure of her house and the ensuing warrant search. Thus, the Court held that the trial court didn’t err in denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress. Affirmed.