Legal Opinion

State v. Luman

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 2009No. CC 04102244; CA A132197; SC S056470PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*489GILLETTE, J.

The state appeals from a Court of Appeals decision reversing a trial court order that denied in part defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. As in State v. Heckathorne, 347 Or 474, 223 P3d 1034 (2009), the issue in this case involves the warrant requirement in Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. Here, the question is whether the police were required to obtain a search warrant to view the images on a videotape in their possession when, without the owner’s consent, private parties already had viewed the videotape and then given it to the police. The Court of Appeals…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. United States v. JacobsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Burdeau v. McDowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  3. Walter v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  5. State v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. HeckathorneOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. SinesOregon Supreme Court · 2016
  3. State v. STOKKECourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  4. State v. StokkeOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  5. State v. SinesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017

3 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