State v. Hampton

• Decision Date: 14 December 2011
• Docket Number: C081687CR; A142079.
• Parties: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Kirk Elliott HAMPTON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

247 Or.App. 147
268 P.3d 711

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
Kirk Elliott HAMPTON, Defendant–Appellant.

C081687CR; A142079.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2011.Decided Dec. 14, 2011.

[268 P.3d 712]

Ryan Scott argued the case and filed the briefs for appellant.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicotor General, and Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General.

Before SCHUMAN, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and NAKAMOTO, Judge.

WOLLHEIM, J.

[247 Or.App. 149] Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.840(3)(a), based on evidence that a police officer obtained during a consensual search of a vehicle during a traffic stop. Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in summarily denying his pretrial motion to suppress for failure to comply with the Uniform Trial Court Rules. The state asserts that any error in not considering the merits of defendant's motion was harmless because the evidence was admissible, and also cross-assigns error to the trial court's later exclusion of defendant's statements as having been obtained during an unlawful extension of the traffic stop. Because we agree with the state that any error in not considering defendant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence was harmless, we affirm.

In reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the trial court's legal determinations for errors of law and defer to the trial court's findings of fact where there is sufficient evidence in the record to support them. State v. Gomes, 236 Or.App. 364, 370, 236 P.3d 841 (2010); State v. Larson, 141 Or.App. 186, 190, 917 P.2d 519, rev. den., 324 Or. 229, 925 P.2d 908 (1996).

The facts are not disputed. One night in July 2008, a police officer saw defendant driving a car without its headlights on and with expired registration. The officer pulled defendant over and asked for his license, registration card, and proof of insurance. Defendant gave his license and insurance card to the officer, but was unable to locate the registration card. While defendant was looking for his registration card, the officer asked defendant if he had any weapons, drugs, or contraband in the car. Defendant

[268 P.3d 713]

said that he did not. The officer asked defendant for consent to search the car, and defendant consented to the search.

The officer went back to his car to run a records check on defendant's license. The officer returned to defendant's car and told defendant that he was not going to cite defendant for driving without lights and with an expired registration, and that defendant would just get a warning. The officer directed defendant to get out of his car, told defendant that he was “free to go,” and returned his documents. [247 Or.App. 150] The officer then immediately asked defendant to stand to the side while the officer conducted a search pursuant to defendant's earlier consent to search.

In the search of the car, the officer found a bag containing several mushrooms with long stems; the officer recognized the mushrooms as psilocybin mushrooms, a controlled substance. The officer asked defendant if they were psilocybin mushrooms and defendant said that they were. Defendant also admitted that the mushrooms were under the driver's seat of the car because he put them there. The officer put defendant, in handcuffs, in the back of the patrol car and read him his Miranda rights. In response to subsequent questioning, defendant said that he had purchased the mushrooms earlier that day but had not used any yet. The officer asked defendant why he used the mushrooms and defendant said, “I like the way they make me feel.” Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress “all evidence of whatever kind or nature, real or testimonial, which the State intends to offer as a basis for defendant's conviction herein.” The motion did not include any argument about why the evidence should be suppressed, but instead listed case summaries as “Points and Authorities.” Defendant did not submit an accompanying brief. The state responded that the court should deny defendant's motion to suppress because defendant's consent to search was valid and the officer's request to search occurred during an unavoidable lull in his traffic investigation.

At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, the state argued that defendant had not filed an adequate motion to suppress and had not adequately framed the issues. The trial court denied the motion to suppress without considering its merits because defendant had not followed UTCR 4.060(1)(b), ¹ which requires the moving party to file a brief to accompany the motion to suppress.

[247 Or.App. 151] During the bench trial, the officer testified consistently with the facts as set forth above. After the state presented its case, the court held a hearing to determine whether the statements defendant made to the officer were admissible.² The state argued that the statements should be admitted because they were...