Legal Opinion

State v. Fessenden / Dicke

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided August 7, 2014No. C 10CR2252MI; CA A150065; SC S061740; CC 10CR2251MI; CA A150092; SC S061770PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWalters, J.

In these consolidated criminal appeals, we consider whether an officer violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution or the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when, without a warrant, he entered private property, seized an emaciated horse, and took the horse to a veterinarian. We conclude that the officer acted lawfully because he had probable cause to believe that defendants were committing the crime of animal neglect and reasonably believed, based on specific articulable facts, that immediate action was necessary to prevent further imminent harm to and the death…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Ker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. Michigan v. TylerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. State v. MazzolaOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  2. State v. McCarthyOregon Supreme Court · 2021
  3. State v. NewcombOregon Supreme Court · 2016
  4. State v. NixOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  5. State v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022

15 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