Legal Opinion

State v. Miglavs

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 2004No. CC C000009CR, C000111CR; CA A111137 (Control), A111138; SC S50279)PublishedCited by 54 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.

The issue in this criminal case is whether a police officer lawfully engaged in a precautionary patdown 1 of defendant in accordance with the officer safety rule set out in State v. Bates, 304 Or 519, 747 P2d 991 (1987). Because there were multiple charges against defendant arising out of separate police patdowns and a subsequent search of defendant’s residence, we first set out the procedural history in some detail.

Defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm based on evidence uncovered during a patdown (the patdown at issue here) conducted in August 1999.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Michigan v. LongSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. BatesOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  4. State v. ValdezOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  5. State v. AmayaOregon Supreme Court · 2004

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

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. State v. JimenezOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  2. State v. Rodriguez-PerezCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  3. State v. GuggenmosOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  4. State v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  5. State v. RudderOregon Supreme Court · 2009

49 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