{"id":14134,"date":"2014-11-11T13:34:03","date_gmt":"2014-11-11T18:34:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=14134"},"modified":"2014-11-11T11:40:47","modified_gmt":"2014-11-11T16:40:47","slug":"14134","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=14134","title":{"rendered":"OR follows Brown v. Illinois on attenuation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Oregon follows <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=8826656230568767300&#038;q=Brown%2Bv.%2BIllinois&#038;hl=en&#038;as_sdt=20002\">Brown v. Illinois<\/a> on attenuation analysis. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.publications.ojd.state.or.us\/docs\/S061647.pdf\">State v. Bailey<\/a>, 356 Ore. 486, 2014 Ore. LEXIS 813 (November 6, 2014):<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The circuit court and the Court of Appeals rejected defendant&#8217;s arguments and applied a per se rule to the attenuation analysis: The discovery and execution of a valid arrest warrant necessarily break the connection between preceding unlawful police conduct and a search incident to the arrest. State v. Bailey, 258 Or App 18, 308 P3d 368 (2013). The Court of Appeals drew that rule from this court&#8217;s decision in State v. Dempster, 248 Or 404, 434 P2d 746 (1967). Bailey, 258 Or App at 21-29. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that Dempster&#8217;s per se rule is inconsistent with the subsequent development of the Fourth Amendment attenuation exception set out in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S Ct 2254, 45 L Ed 2d 416 (1975), where the United States Supreme Court rejected such an approach. Id. at 603. Instead, Brown requires courts to consider three factors in the attenuation analysis: (1) the temporal proximity between unlawful police conduct and the discovery of challenged evidence; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) &#8220;particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.&#8221; Id. at 603-04. Applying those factors in this case, we conclude that the circuit court erred in denying defendant&#8217;s motion to suppress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Oregon follows Brown v. Illinois on attenuation analysis. State v. Bailey, 356 Ore. 486, 2014 Ore. LEXIS 813 (November 6, 2014):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[75],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-attenuation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14134"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14134\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14136,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14134\/revisions\/14136"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}