OR: Defendant’s suppression hearing cross-exam showed he believed he was free to leave

Defendant’s cross examination during the suppression hearing produced his testimony that he felt “100%” free to leave when the officer handed all the paperwork back to him, started to walk away, turned around and came back and started talking again. Defendant consented to a search of the car. Defendant conceded from the beginning that the stop was lawful. State v. Salvador, 237 Ore. App. 424, 241 P.3d 324 (2010). This is reminiscent of Kentucky v. Rawlings where the defendant admitted he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the drugs he stuck in a woman’s purse. No matter how much one prepares a client for a suppression hearing, clients will often hang themselves on standing or the merits of the search. Here, it was necessary to put the client on to at least raise a fact question that he did not feel free to leave, and then he gave the wrong answer.

Defendant did not preserve the claim that an adversary proceeding is a prerequisite to surgical removal of a bullet from his arm. The warrant here was otherwise valid. State v. Everett, 237 Ore. App. 556, 240 P.3d 102 (2010).

The vehicle occupants’ false answers extended the stop, not the officer, so the extension of the stop and the “exit order” were with reasonable suspicion. Commonwealth v. Elysee, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 833, 934 N.E.2d 837, 92 A.L.R.6th 687 (2010).*