OR: Suppression motion was sufficiently detailed to apprise state and court of issues; striking it was error

The trial court erred in striking defendant’s motion to suppress for generality because it fairly apprised the state and the court what the issues were. State v. Oxford, 287 Ore. App. 580, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 1019 (Aug. 30, 2017):

Here, as required by UTCR 4.060(1)(a), defendant’s motion cited authority on which defendant relied, specifically, Article I, section 9, and Miller. It apprised the court and the state that defendant challenged specific searches and seizures: the state’s “stop and seizure of the defendant,” and the state’s “search of the defendant’s residence and personal room.” The motion set forth defendant’s position that the searches and seizures had been warrantless and that “[w]arrantless searches and seizure are per se unreasonable.” And it laid out the evidence that defendant sought to have suppressed: “any and all evidence obtained as a result” of the warrantless search and seizure of defendant and the warrantless search of defendant’s residence and personal room, “including the firearms and explosive device, and all oral derivative evidence.” Defendant’s assertions in his motion and brief in support “sufficiently apprise[d]” the court, UTCR 4.060(1)(b), and were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the rule, “at least for the purpose of imposing upon the state the burden to show the legality of the search.” Miller, 269 Ore. at 334. Under the circumstances, the trial court erred in striking defendant’s motion for failure to comply with UTCR 4.060(1). Defendant was entitled to have his suppression motion considered on its merits. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the judgments in the consolidated cases.