Legal Opinion

State v. Hitchcock

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 19, 2008No. CR030978 A129575 (Control), CR030977 A129576PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSercombe, J.

Following a denial of their motion to suppress evidence, defendants Hitchcock and Winters pleaded guilty to charges of possession of a controlled substance and frequenting a place where controlled substances are used, kept, or sold. Former ORS 475.992(4)(b) (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.840(3) (2005); ORS 167.222. Defendants assign error to the denial of their motion to suppress evidence of drugs and drug paraphernalia seized during a search of their bedroom. Defendants argue that Winters was unlawfully detained by police and that her consent to search the bedroom and her incriminating…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  2. State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. KennedyOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  4. State v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State v. HolmesOregon Supreme Court · 1991

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. HuggettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  2. State v. LayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  3. State v. BarnthouseCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  4. State v. ChambersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  5. State v. HemenwayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009

4 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