Title: State v. Cleveland
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S41302
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: December 29, 2000

FILED: DECEMBER 29, 2000 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON,
	Respondent on Review,
	v.
ELIZABETH A. CLEVELAND, 
	Petitioner on Review.
(CC 92CR306; CA A76961; SC S41302)

	On review from the Court of Appeals.*
	Argued and submitted March 9, 1995.  Resubmitted June 11,
1998.
	Ingrid A. MacFarlane, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued
the cause for petitioner on review.  With her on the briefs were
Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Diane L. Alessi, Chief Deputy
Public Defender, and Peter Gartlan, Deputy Public Defender.
	Rives Kistler, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the
cause for respondents on review.  With him on the briefs were
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder,
Solicitor General.
	David E. Groom, Salem, filed a brief for amicus curiae
Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.  With him on the
brief was David G. Terry, Roseburg.
	Thomas M. Christ, Portland, filed a brief for amicus curiae
ACLU Foundation of Oregon, Inc.
	Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van Hoomissen,
and Durham, Justices.**
	DURHAM, J.
	The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The
judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is
remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
	 *Appeal from Curry County Circuit Court (CA A76961), Richard K. Mickelson, Judge Pro Tem, on Motion to        
Suppress, and Hugh C. Downer, Jr., Trial Judge. 127 Or App 559, 872 P2d 997 (1994).
	**Kulongoski, Leeson, and Riggs, JJ., did not participate in
the decision or consideration of this case.  Unis, J., retired
June 30, 1996, and did not participate in the decision of this
case.  Fadeley, J., retired January 31, 1998, and did not
participate in the decision of this case.  Graber, J., resigned
March 31, 1998, and did not participate in the decision of this
case.  
	DURHAM, J.
	Defendant was convicted of delivery of a controlled
substance, a Class "B" felony.  ORS 475.992.  She appealed,
assigning error to the trial court's denial of a motion to
suppress evidence of conversations that police obtained through
use of an electronic device, i.e., a body wire, hidden on the
person of a police informant.  The Court of Appeals affirmed in a
per curiam decision that cited State v. Bass, 126 Or App 303, 868
P2d 761 (1994).  State v. Cleveland, 127 Or App 559, 872 P2d 997
(1994).
	Defendant's motion sought suppression of evidence of
statements by defendant and other persons intercepted by body
wire at two locations, as well as all evidence derived from the
intercepted communications.  The motion asserted generally that
the police had failed to obtain authorization to use the body
wire through a court order issued under ORS 133.724.
	The trial court determined that, notwithstanding ORS
133.724, the interception of the communications involved here was
permissible because the police satisfied the probable cause
provision of ORS 165.540(5)(a)(B).  However, this court has
determined that an ex parte court order obtained under ORS
133.724 is necessary to provide the police with authority to
obtain evidence of oral communications through use of a device,
that compliance by police with ORS 165.540(5)(a)(B) does not
obviate the necessity of complying with ORS 133.724, and that
evidence of oral communications obtained through use of a body
wire without compliance with ORS 133.724 is subject to
suppression.  State v. Fleetwood, ____ Or ____, ____ P3d ____
(2000) (decided this date).  Applying Fleetwood, we conclude that
the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence of oral
communications intercepted without compliance with ORS 133.724.
	ORS 133.735(1) authorizes suppression of evidence of
the contents of unlawfully intercepted oral communications "or
evidence derived therefrom."  The record indicates that the
police informant, and perhaps other persons, observed and heard
some or all of the oral communications that the body wire
intercepted.  The trial court's findings do not determine whether
the state derived any of the evidence of those first-hand
observations from unlawfully intercepted communications.  As in
Fleetwood, the trial court must determine on remand whether any
of the state's evidence is "derived" from unlawfully intercepted
communications and is subject to suppression on that basis.  ORS
133.735; Fleetwood, ___ Or at ____ n 5 (slip op. at 5-6 n 4).
	The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The
judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is
remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.