State v. Stanley
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDeits, P. J.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Maloney’s frisk of defendant was unlawful. However, because I believe that Maloney did not exploit his prior unlawful conduct in obtaining defendant’s consent to search, I would affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress.
The majority has done an excellent job of formulating the proper exploitation analysis under the existing case law, which is less than precise. I agree with the majority’s formulation to the extent that it concludes that exploitation occurs when the police, through unlawful conduct, obtain information that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. KennedyOregon Supreme Court · 1981
- State v. QuinnOregon Supreme Court · 1981
- State v. RodriguezOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. WilliamsonOregon Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. WeaverOregon Supreme Court · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.