OR: Three on preservation of search issues at the suppression hearing

Defendant preserved his argument that officer safety was not a valid justification in his memorandum of law, and that put the state and the trial court on notice that was an issue the state had to address, and didn’t. State v. Mejia, 287 Ore. App. 17, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 928 (July 26, 2017).

Defendant did not preserve the issue of whether opening the door of his car was a search by mentioning it for the first time in his closing argument at the hearing on the motion to suppress. The state wasn’t given enough notice to respond. State v. Geyer, 287 Ore. App. 25, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 916 (July 26, 2017).

The state didn’t sufficiently raise its alternative argument for affirmance to the trial court to get it ruled on. State v. Najar, 287 Ore. App. 98, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 925 (July 26, 2017).

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.