Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Rodgers

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 11, 2010No. CC CM0420629; CA A128857; SC S056239; CC CR030112; CA A128263; SC S056237Published

1DissentDurham, J.

The question that these cases pose is straightforward: Did the police officers conduct unreasonable searches in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, when they (1) searched defendant Rodgers’s car, (2) conducted a patdown search of defendant Kirkeby, and (3) opened a metal container discovered in Kirkeby’s pocket during the patdown? Each of those searches yielded drug-related evidence.

In my view, those searches were not unreasonable and, thus, did not violate Article I, section 9. My reason for that conclusion is equally straightforward, although it virtually…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. United States v. WatsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Nardone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986

15 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