Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Kruchek

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 28, 1998No. 95-12-39452; CA A92706Published

1DissentEdmonds, J.

The majority holds that defendant continued to have a privacy interest in his ice chest, which was lawfully in the possession of the police, even though it was apparent to anyone in the vicinity of the chest that it contained marijuana because of its odor.* 1 As a result, the majority concludes that the police were required under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, to procure a search warrant before they could open the cooler. The majority’s reasoning is contrary to the reasoning of the Supreme Court in State v. Herbert, 302 Or 237, 729 P2d 547 (1986), and accordingly, it errs.

Wh…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Arkansas v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. California v. AcevedoSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  4. State v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State v. Juarez-GodinezOregon Supreme Court · 1997

10 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