Reglas sobre la supresión de pruebas en búsquedas sin orden judicial

Explicación Simple

Si la policía busca algo sin permiso, puedes pedir que no usen esa evidencia en tu contra. Es como decir que no pueden usar un secreto que escucharon sin que nadie les diera permiso.

Es como cuando un amigo entra a tu casa sin avisar y ve algo que no querías mostrar. Si después intenta contarle a otros, puedes decir que no puede usar eso porque no tenía permiso para entrar.

Ejemplo Práctico

Imagina que Juan está en su casa cuando la policía entra sin una orden y encuentra drogas. Juan puede pedir que no usen esas pruebas en el juicio, argumentando que la búsqueda fue ilegal porque no había una orden.

Texto Original del Estatuto (Inglés)

ial basis for controverting the affidavit for a search warrant before being privileged to invoke the procedure provided by the statute. State v. Wright, 266 Or 163, 511 P2d 1223 (1973) A motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search, stating that the search was warrantless, is sufficient to place the burden of proving the reasonableness of the search on the state. State v. Miller, 269 Or 328, 524 P2d 1399 (1974) In general This section does not change the rule that failure to furnish the list of things seized required by ORS 133.723 is not ground for suppression of evidence. State v. Fitzgerald, 19 Or App 860, 530 P2d 553 (1974) In a case where a motion to suppress raises more than one contention and the trial court is persuaded to grant the motion on one or more of the grounds raised, then the court must state the basis of its decision. State v. Johnson/Imel, 16 Or App 560, 519 P2d 1053 (1974), Sup Ct review denied A motion to suppress should be as reasonably specific as possible under the circumstances in order to give the state as much notice as possible of the contentions it must be prepared to meet at the suppression hearing, and at least as much specificity should be required in a motion to suppress as is required in an oral objection made during the course of a trial. State v. Johnson/Imel, 16 Or App 560, 519 P2d 1053 (1974), Sup Ct review denied Trial court was within its discretion in limiting defendant to written motion to suppress witho