Legal Opinion

State v. Stevens

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 2018No. CC 12CR1676FE, 12CR1963FE; SC S065140PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKistler, J.

*1061**93In State v. Amaya , 336 Or. 616, 89 P.3d 1163 (2004), this court stated that stopping the driver of a car does not constitute a seizure of the passengers for the purposes of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. We allowed review in this case to decide whether that statement constituted part of the court's holding and, if it did, whether we should overrule that part of Amaya . For the reasons set out below, we conclude that our statement was part of the holding in Amaya , and we adhere to it.

The remaining question in this case is whether defendant (a passenger in a van) was…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Brendlin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Maryland v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  3. Arizona v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  4. State v. UngerOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  5. State v. AmayaOregon Supreme Court · 2004

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. Arreola-BotelloOregon Supreme Court · 2019
  2. State v. Guzman/HecklerOregon Supreme Court · 2019
  3. State v. Reyes-HerreraOregon Supreme Court · 2021
  4. State v. KamphCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  5. State v. Soto-NavarroCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API