Legal Opinion

State v. Dicke

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 25, 2013No. 10CR2251MI; A150092PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant was charged with first-degree animal neglect, ORS 167.330, and first-degree animal abuse, ORS 167.320, in association with having allowed her horse to become so severely emaciated that it was at imminent risk of dying. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress evidence that was obtained through a warrantless seizure of the horse. The trial court denied that motion and defendant was convicted of the charged crimes. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying her suppression motion; according to defendant, the warrantless seizure of her horse violated both…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Brigham City v. StuartSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  2. Davis v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. State v. FessendenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  4. Morgan v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2008

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. Fessenden / DickeOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  2. State v. FessendenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  3. State v. ArcherDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2018
  4. People v. JulianoNew York County Court, Wayne County · 2016
  5. State v. Fessenden / DickeOregon Supreme Court · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API