Legal Opinion

State v. Lantzsch

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 15, 2009No. C070765CR; A136096PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, C. J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. He asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of a search, because his consent to the search was the unattenuated product of an unlawful seizure of his person. As explained below, we vacate and remand because the trial court did not make a finding of fact regarding whether defendant subjectively believed that he had been seized when the officer, who had completed his investigation and arrest of the driver of the car in which defendant was a passenger, contacted…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Brendlin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  3. State v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  4. State v. HolmesOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  5. State v. ToevsOregon Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. LantzschCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  2. State v. BackstrandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  3. State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  4. State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  5. State v. LovellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010

3 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