- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 11-24-2021
- Case #: A164912
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Sercombe, S.J.; & Powers, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a conviction for, among other things, first-degree rape. On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress DNA evidence obtained from a consensual buccal swab. Defendant argued that the DNA swab should have been suppressed for two reasons: (1) his consent was made involuntarily, following statements made by a DHS worker threatening to take his son away if he failed to comply, and (2) his consent was derived from a violation of Article I, section 12, of the Oregon constitution. In response, the State argued that because Defendant consented before the DHS worker made the coercive statements, his consent could not have derived from them and was therefore voluntary. Unless, during a continuous transaction relating to the search in question, a defendant indicates verbally or by conduct that they wish for their voluntary consent to no longer be valid, it is presumed to continue. State v. Luther, 63 Or App. 86, 89, 663 P2d 1261 (1983). The Court held that since the transaction where officers obtained Defendant's voluntary consent was continuous, and because Defendant consented before any unlawfully coercive statements, his consent was presumed to continue. Affirmed.