Legal Opinion

State v. Carter

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 24, 2006No. CC 020195 CR; CA A122768; SC S53014PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKistler, J.

The question that this case presents is whether a warrant that authorized the police to search for specific items but did not authorize them to seize those items is facially valid under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court held that it was not. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under Article I, section 9, a warrant may authorize only a search or only a seizure; it need not authorize both to be valid. State v. Carter, 200 Or App 262, 113 P3d 969 (2005). We allowed defendant’s petition for review and now affirm the Court of Appeals decision.

The search…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Priest v. PearceOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State v. BridewellOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  5. State v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State v. MansorOregon Supreme Court · 2018
  2. State v. TurayOregon Supreme Court · 2023
  3. Monica v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
  4. State v. BellarCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  5. State v. CurrinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013

10 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