{"id":9192,"date":"2013-09-27T08:29:51","date_gmt":"2013-08-03T11:19:25","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-08-03T11:19:25","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9192","title":{"rendered":"OR: &#8220;I need to talk to the person that just ran in&#8221; led to consent"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>An officer had a tip of a DUI driving on a resort parking lot, and he saw the driver go into a condo. He went to the door and said  &#8220;I need to talk to the person that just ran in.&#8221; The entry was by consent. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.publications.ojd.state.or.us\/docs\/A146377.pdf\">State v. Briggs<\/a>, 257 Ore. App. 738, 307 P.3d 564 (2013):<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In light of this precedent, we hold that the state has met its burden of proving that the renter&#8217;s consent to the search was voluntary. Although Brown&#8217;s statement, &#8220;I need to talk to the person that just ran in,&#8221; was a declaration and not a question or a request, it was not a statement that  would, in &#8220;ordinary social intercourse,&#8221; Ry\/Guinto, 211 Ore. App. at 306, convey to a listener that her only alternative was to permit the officer to enter; the statement would not convey to the listener that &#8220;she had no choice whether a search would occur,&#8221; Freund, 102 Ore. App. at 652. Rather, the statement left the person who answered the door with a clear choice: She could have stepped aside and allowed the officer to enter, or she could have left the officer outside and gone to tell defendant that an officer wanted to talk to him. Indeed, the latter would be the more typical response from the host of a crowded social occasion when a police officer expresses a desire to have a conversation with a guest. When she stepped aside and motioned toward defendant, she demonstrated that she chose to let the officer in so that he could approach defendant, instead of choosing to bring defendant to the officer. In other words, she consented to his entry. Thus, the warrantless entry did not constitute a violation of Article I, section 9.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9192\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9192","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9192","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9192"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9192\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}