Legal Opinion

State v. Casteel

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 4, 1993No. 91-CR-0039-15; CA A72706; 91-CR-0059-15; CA A72707; 91-CR-0040-15; CA A72708; 91-CR-0041-15; CA A72709; 91-CR-0050; CA A72710; 91-CR-0052; CA A72711; 91-CR-0054; CA A72712; 91-CR-0062; CA A72713; 91-CR-0065; CA A72714; 91-CR-0051-15; CA A72715; 91-CR-0055-15; CA A72716; 91-CR-0063-15; CA A72717; 91-CR-0067-15; CA A72718; 91-CR-0071-15; CA A72719PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.

Defendants were charged with conspiracy and with possession, manufacturing and delivery of controlled substances. The trial court granted defendants’ motions to suppress tape recordings of conversations that they had with a police informant, because the investigating officers had not obtained an order authorizing their use of a body wire to record the conversations. The state appeals. ORS 138.060(3). We reverse.

The trial court conducted a stipulated facts hearing on defendants’ motions to suppress. In the summer of 1990, the Prineville Police Department coordinated an interagency drug…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. State v. NielsenOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. JuryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  2. State v. FleetwoodCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  3. State v. BassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API