Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Cram

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1945Published

1Dissent

BELT,- C. J.,

dissenting:

To extract blood by hypodermic needle from a person accused of crime, without his consent and while he is unconscious, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against him, shocks my sense of justice and decency. It is law enforcement with a vengeance! It is law enforcement based upon violation of the law and ought not be approved by any court. The hypodermic needle was not inserted into the body of the defendant for the purpose of treatment. The doctor, upon request of the police officer, extracted the blood to be used in bringing about the conviction of the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Agnello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  3. Gouled v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  4. United States v. LefkowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  5. State v. HeightSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902

17 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