State v. White
Decision Date | 08 September 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 81-9-102,81-9-102 |
Citation | 59 Or.App. 61,650 P.2d 184 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Allen G. WHITE, Appellant. ; CA A23660. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Marilyn C. McManus, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before GILLETTE, P. J., and WARDEN and YOUNG, JJ.
Defendant appeals his convictions for burglary and theft, both in the second degree. He assigns error, inter alia, to the trial court's refusal to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of his automobile. We reverse and remand.
From the rather sparse, 20-page record made at the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress evidence, it appears that three police officers went to the location where defendant and his family were camped at about 4 a. m. on August 29, 1981, to inquire into defendant's reported commission of the burglary and theft that became the charges in this case. The police were also searching for another person, an attempted murder suspect. Although the testimony on the point is conflicting, the trial court found that defendant was questioned about the burglary before he was placed under arrest and advised of his Miranda rights and admitted taking eggs and milk from the victim. Thereafter, defendant consented to the search of his car, where the fruits of the burglary were found.
The trial court suppressed defendant's pre-arrest admissions, apparently on the ground that defendant should have been advised of his Miranda rights immediately, inasmuch as he was a "focal suspect" in the burglary. However, the court refused to suppress the physical evidence seized from defendant's automobile, on the ground that defendant consented to the search. The trial judge stated his conclusions this way:
On appeal, defendant contends that his consent to the search of his automobile was necessarily "tainted" by his admission of guilt moments before, prior to advice of his rights, and that, if his admission of guilt was correctly suppressed, the physical evidence obtained with his consent inevitably must be suppressed also.
The state, for its part, appears to agree with defendant's legal theory but proposes a roadblock based upon its perception that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Neely
...were suppressed because they were elicited before he was given Miranda warnings, it should have been suppressed under State v. White, 59 Or.App. 61, 650 P.2d 184 (1982), modified 297 Or. 302, 685 P.2d 983 (1984). The state argues that Miranda warnings were not required because, when the sta......
-
State v. Guayante
...freedom of action and was "in custody." State v. Roberti, 293 Or. 59, 644 P.2d 1104, 293 Or. 236, 646 P.2d 1341 (1982); State v. White, 59 Or.App. 61, 650 P.2d 184 (1982); State v. Wells, 58 Or.App. 617, 650 P.2d 117 (1982); State v. Paz, 31 Or.App. 851, 572 P.2d 1036 (1977), rev. den. 282 ......
-
State v. White
...entered. Defendant appealed, assigning denial of his motion to suppress the items seized from the car. In the Court of Appeals, 59 Or.App. 61, 650 P.2d 184, the state virtually conceded that the items should have been suppressed if the trial court was correct in its ruling on the suppressio......
-
State v. White
...382 668 P.2d 382 295 Or. 446 State v. White (Allen G.) NOS. A23660, 29082 Supreme Court of Oregon JUL 26, 1983 59 Or.App. 61, 650 P.2d 184 ...