State v. Hibdon, 10-81-01615

Decision Date26 May 1982
Docket NumberNo. 10-81-01615,No. 10-81-01616,10-81-01615,10-81-01616
Citation57 Or.App. 509,645 P.2d 580
PartiesSTATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Michael Dean HIBDON, Appellant. (Cases consolidated) ; CA A21280,; CA A21281.
CourtOregon Court of Appeals

David B. Lowry, Eugene, filed the brief for appellant.

Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., William F. Gary, Sol. Gen. and Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before BUTTLER, P. J., and WARDEN and WARREN, JJ.

WARDEN, Judge.

Defendant appeals two convictions for burglary in the second degree, ORS 164.215, assigning as error the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a confession made after an allegedly illegal search of his girlfriend's apartment.

On two nights in succession, February 5 and February 6, 1981, a Springfield grocery store was burglarized. After a preliminary investigation, Springfield police detective Bond obtained an arrest warrant for defendant, the stepson of an employe of the store. On February 10, 1981, Bond was advised by defendant's stepmother that defendant was probably at the apartment of his girlfriend, Belinda Noble.

At about 6:30 p. m., on February 11, 1981, Bond and another detective went to Ms. Noble's apartment, knocked on the door, identified themselves and were admitted by Ms. Noble, who, when asked, said that defendant was not inside. Hearing a noise, detective Bond then walked to the bedroom, unlocked and opened the door, entered the room, turned on the light on the dresser, opened the closet, pointed his gun at the bed and ordered defendant to come out or be shot. Defendant came out from under the bed and was immediately arrested.

Before giving defendant his Miranda 1 warnings, Bond asked defendant if a backpack in the room was his and whether some coins in two tequila bottles sitting on a chest of drawers were from the burglary. Defendant answered affirmatively to both questions. The backpack and coins were seized by Bond, who then placed defendant in a patrol car, read him his rights and transported him to the police station. There, after being read his Miranda rights for a second time, defendant confessed to the two burglaries in a taped statement to detective Bond.

Defendant moved to suppress all evidence of any confession and any physical evidence seized as a result of the search of Ms. Noble's apartment, contending that the search was illegal because the police had not obtained a valid search warrant. Defendant also argued that the confession should be suppressed, because it resulted from questions asked before he was given Miranda warnings. At the suppression hearing, the trial court found that, although defendant had standing to object to the search and seizure, there was no need for a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Oregon v. Elstad
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1985
    ...with his version of the incident"). But see In re Pablo A. C., 129 Cal.App.3d 984, 181 Cal.Rptr. 468 (1982); State v. Hibdon, 57 Ore.App. 509, 645 P.2d 580 (1982); State v. Lavaris, 99 Wash.2d 851, 857-860, 664 P.2d 1234, 1237-1239 (1983). 3. Most of the 50 cases cited by Justice BRENNAN in......
  • State v. Guayante
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • July 22, 1983
    ...are the most important considerations. * * * " 61 Or.App. at 677, 658 P.2d 552. See also State v. Mendacino, supra. In State v. Hibdon, 57 Or.App. 509, 645 P.2d 580 (1982), two policemen with a warrant for the defendant's arrest for burglaries found him in his girlfriend's apartment and arr......
  • State v. McCoy
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 2000
    ...61 Or.App. 673, 658 P.2d 552 (1983), rev'd Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), and State v. Hibdon, 57 Or.App. 509, 645 P.2d 580 (1982). Because we find no coercion here, we do not address those 2. The Oregon Supreme Court has held that "[i]n the context o......
  • State ex rel. Juvenile Dept. of Lane County v. Charles
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • September 13, 1989
    ...(1983), on the basis, feline metaphors aside, that, under State v. Mendacino, 288 Or. 231, 603 P.2d 1376 (1979), and State v. Hibdon, 57 Or.App. 509, 645 P.2d 580 (1982), there was insufficient time between the statement made in the bedroom and the station house confession to permit the "di......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT