State v. Pitz

Under ORS 135.335(3), when a defendant enters a conditional guilty, reserving the right on appeal to “a review of an adverse determination of any specified pretrial motion,” and subsequently prevails on appeal, the defendant may withdraw the plea.

Petitioner’s probation term ended. Four days later, the state, Respondent here, ordered her to appear in court. Petitioner failed to appear, and an arrest warrant was issued and executed. Upon arrest, a search of Petitioner’s lunch box revealed drug evidence that ultimately led to an indictment for unlawful methamphetamine possession.

At trial, the court denied Petitioner’s motion to suppress the lunchbox evidence and held that although the arrest warrant was invalid, Petitioner had voluntarily consented to the lunchbox search, dissipating the taint of the earlier constitutional violation. Petitioner entered a conditional guilty plea.

On appeal, Petitioner argued that the initial warrant violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution because Petitioner was no longer on probation at the time the court order was issued, and thus, the court lacked authority to compel her presence or issue the subsequent arrest warrant. Petitioner further argued that the lunchbox search was involuntary.

The court agreed with Petitioner’s contentions, finding that because the trial court entered its order to appear after Petitioner’s probation term expired, Petitioner was no longer under the court’s statutory authority. ORS 137.545(2) (warrants for probation violations may issue “[a]t any time during the probation period.”). Moreover, because Article I, section 9, provides that “no warrant shall issue but upon probably cause * * *,” the arrest warrant derived from Petitioner’s failure to appear “lacked a constitutional basis.” Accordingly, the court held that Petitioner was unlawfully arrested. The court further held that because evidence obtained following a constitutional violation is presumed invalid and must be suppressed, even if Petitioner’s consent had been voluntary, it was the “product of police exploitation of [Petitioner’s] illegal arrest.” State v. Unger, 356 Or 59, 84, 333 P3d 1009 (2014).  Accordingly, the court held that the lunchbox evidence must be suppressed, and Petitioner was entitled to withdraw her conditional guilty plea.

Reversed and remanded.