State v. Suppah

Evidence of a misrepresentation to a police officer under ORS 807.620 will not be suppressed, even if the untruthful statement is elicited during an unlawful stop if the misrepresentation is unconnected with the unlawful stop in only a “but for” sense.

Defendant was convicted of providing false information to a police officer (ORS 807.620) after the trial court denied his motion to suppress statements made after a stop, and a later confession. Defendant was stopped by a police officer on suspicion for committing a traffic infringement—the officer did not specify in his report, nor did he remember at trial why he stopped Defendant. During the stop, Defendant gave a false name and address, and was charged only with driving without insurance and with a suspended license, based on the given name. Later, Defendant called back in to the police department, and confessed that he had provided false information. At trial, Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the original false statements given to officers, along with his later confession, on grounds that he had been unlawfully stopped because the officer was unable to state the purpose for the stop. The trial court denied the motion to suppress either statement. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that only the later confession was admissible, with Judge Hadlock dissenting. The Court certified the State’s petition for review, and upheld the trial court’s decision, holding that the reason for Defendant’s original misrepresentation was unconnected with the officer’s preceding unlawful stop, and therefore was not a product of that stop. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.