Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Lippert

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 22, 1992No. 90-05-1642-C; CA A65707Published

1Concurrence

De MUNIZ, J.,

specially concurring.

I agree with the result and most of the reasoning in the lead opinion. However, that opinion suggests that evidence obtained as a result of an inventory conducted during a civil detox hold can never be used by the state in a criminal prosecution. I disagree with that proposition.

Defendant was seized when he was taken into civil custody. However, his seizure was without a warrant or probable cause to believe that he had committed a crime. In State v. Boyanovsky, 304 Or 131, 743 P2d 711 (1987), the Supreme Court said:

“[S]ome ‘searches’ and ‘seizures,’ conducted…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. BridewellOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State v. BoyanovskyOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  3. State v. OkekeOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  4. State v. McCroryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  5. State v. LawrenceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982

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