|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|State of Oregon v, Kristi DeJong|
|Via Video Case 2|
|Mark J. Kimbrell on behalf of Kristi DeJong|
Christopher R. Page on behalf of State of Oregon
Statement of Issues:
| (1) Does a defendant seeking to suppress evidence under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, have any further burden if she has established that an unlawful warrantless search or seizure preceded a search or seizure that was supported by a warrant?|
(2) If a defendant bears the burden of showing a minimal factual nexus in such a setting, does she satisfy that burden if she establishes that (a) police officers used the fruits of their unlawful warrantless seizure in their warrant affidavit, and (b) that police continued to unlawfully seize the evidence until the moment that they searched it pursuant to a warrant?
These summaries of cases are prepared for the benefit of members of the media to assist them in reporting the court's activities to the public. Parties and practitioners should not rely on the summaries, or the statement of issues to be decided in the summaries, as indicating the questions that the Supreme Court will consider. Regarding the questions that the Supreme Court may consider, see Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: