Preview:

Oregon Judicial Department Appellate Court Opinions
FILED: July 9, 2003
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Respondent,
v.
BRIDGET Y. SMITH,
Appellant.
00FE0076; A113755
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County.
Daniel J. Ahern, Judge.
Argued and submitted May 27, 2003.
Peter Gartlan, Chief Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was David E. Groom, Acting Executive Director, Office of Public Defense Services.
Janet A. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Brewer, Judges.
BREWER, J.
Affirmed.
BREWER, J.
Defendant appeals her conviction for possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. Her sole assignment of error on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence that she had drugs in her possession, because their discovery was the product of a search conducted without her voluntary consent in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant argues that, after the police arrested her, they coerced her to consent to a search of her person by giving her a legally incorrect warning, namely, that she would be charged with supplying contraband if she had drugs in her possession when they
transported her to jail. (1) We conclude that defendant did not preserve that argument at trial, see ORAP 5.45(4), and, therefore, we affirm.
Deputy Adkins and Seargent Hardman of the Jefferson County sheriff's office arrested defendant pursuant to a warrant for an unrelated probation violation. After the officers placed defendant in handcuffs, Adkins asked her if she had any drugs in her possession. He told her that, if she did, in order to avoid being charged with supplying contraband, she should surrender the drugs before they took her to jail. Defendant admitted that she had a bindle of methamphetamine in her pocket, and she produced it for the officers. Adkins then advised her of her Miranda rights. Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance.
At trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the methamphetamine evidence. In her written motion, she argued that "(1) [the] evidence was obtained as a result of an illegal search conducted by Officers Adkins and Hardman; [and] (2) [the] evidence was discovered and obtained as a result of unlawful questioning of the defendant during a period of
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/A113755.htm[4/19/2013 12:00:24 AM] Oregon Judicial Department Appellate Court Opinions
custodial interrogation conducted without the defendant being first advised of her constitutional rights." See Or Const, Art I,

Download A113755.pdf

Oregon Law