Legal Opinion

State v. Winn

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 2017No. CC 12C46360; CA A154313 SC S064263PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, J.

This is the second of two companion cases that implicate, for purposes of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, the standard for determining the scope of a criminal defendant’s consent to a law enforcement officer’s request to search an item of personal property. In State v. Blair, 361 Or 527, 396 P3d 908 (2017), we reviewed a trial court’s determination that the defendant’s consent to a police officer’s generalized request to search his backpack extended to the opening of a closed container inside the backpack. We concluded that the scope-of-consent inquiry is a factual one,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. Arroyo-SoteloCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  2. State v. BlairOregon Supreme Court · 2017
  3. State v. HelowCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  4. State v. DelongCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  5. State v. WinnMarion County Circuit Court, Oregon · 2016

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. J. D. H. (In re J. D. H.)Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  2. State v. CrossCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API