Chapter 11

Mary, I want you to determine if we can get the evidence suppressed in this case. I need a memo on this by the day after tomorrow, if possible." Jan handed Mary the case file as she gave these instructions. Mary Strate is a legal assistant working in an Oregon law firm that specializes in criminal defense.Jan Brite is her supervising attorney, and according to Jan, Mary is her "right hand."

After reviewing the case and conducting some research, Mary's focus turns to the significant facts relevant to the suppression-of-evidence issue. She determines that there are several key facts. The state police seized the evidence during the execution of a search warrant. A state court judge improperly issued the warrant.The warrant was improperly issued, and therefore defective, because the state police did not present the court sufficient probable cause to justify the search. The opposing side, the state, concedes that the warrant was improperly issued. The officers did not know the warrant was defective and executed it in the good-faith belief that it was valid.

Mary's research indicates that the resolution of the issue is governed by Oregon's exclusionary rule, which provides that evidence illegally seized may not be admitted at trial. The rule was adopted by the state supreme court and is not statutory. As Mary begins the assignment, her first question is how to phrase the issue."What is the proper format? What is the best way to effectively communicate precisely what is in dispute in this case?" TheApplicationsection of this chapter presents the answer to the latter question. The material discussed in this chapter prior to theApplicationsection addresses Mary's other questions.