USMJ erroneously concluded that the \u201cstatus quo\u201d entry of the defendant\u2019s house was unjustified by exigent circumstances under the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Jones, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110239 (M.D. Fla. November 24, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Under Oregon\u2019s \u201cbut for\u201d test, the state\u2019s concession that the arrest was illegal put on it the burden of showing that there was no minimal link between the arrest and the statement. A Miranda warning is not a \u201cuniversal solvent\u201d to wash away the illegal arrest. Here, the state failed in its burden. State v. Robbins<\/a>, 232 Ore. App. 236, 221 P.3d 801 (2009).*<\/p>\n The state concedes that the stop was too long and the consent was invalid. State v. Orcutt<\/a>, 232 Ore. App. 268, 221 P.3d 835 (2009).*<\/p>\n The officer\u2019s justification for stopping defendant on August 31st on a motorcycle was that he was suspected of eluding her \u201clast winter\u201d on an ATV. The trial court found the stop in a barber shop was without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, and it was supported by the evidence. State v. Massingill<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 6221, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5212 (8th Dist. November 25, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading