Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Barnum

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 23, 1995No. 92 CR 0200; CA A79301Published

1ConcurrenceEdmonds, J.

The lead opinion finds it unnecessary to address defendant’s contention about the lawfulness of the seizure of his notebook from his pocket, because it holds that the initial perusal of the notebook, in order to confirm that it contained material sufficient to constitute a handwriting exemplar, was an illegal search. In his concurring opinion, Judge Warren would hold the seizure of the notebook unlawful. I disagree with both conclusions, but would hold that the subsequent warrantless examination of the notebook after it was' returned from the crime lab was unlawful. Therefore, I concur with…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State v. LowryOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  3. State v. HerbertOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  4. State v. BinnerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  5. State v. GarrettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1971

1 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