Legal Opinion

State v. Ashbaugh

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 2010No. CC C052367CR; CA A131117; SC S057189, S057188PublishedCited by 159 opinions

(Consolidated for argument and opinion)

1Opinion of the Court

*300GILLETTE, J.

This case concerns a criminal defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained in a consent search of her purse. Defendant argued to the trial court that suppression was required because her consent to the search was a product of prior conduct on the part of the police that violated her rights under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution— specifically, an unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful, seizure of her person. The trial court rejected that argument but, on defendant’s appeal, the Court of Appeals remanded for further factfinding, holding that the consent search was…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  4. State v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State v. HolmesOregon Supreme Court · 1991

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

3Cited by159 opinions

  1. State v. UngerOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  2. State v. BackstrandOregon Supreme Court · 2013
  3. State v. FairOregon Supreme Court · 2013
  4. State v. WatsonOregon Supreme Court · 2013
  5. State v. Arreola-BotelloOregon Supreme Court · 2019

154 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