State v. Lippert
Court of Appeals of Oregon
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
- State v. BridewellOregon Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. BoyanovskyOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. OkekeOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. McCroryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
- State v. LawrenceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.