Legal Opinion

State v. Gohring

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 3, 1991No. TC C2860A; CA A48278; TC C2860A,B; CA A48333; SC S36143; TC C-2859; CA A48317; SC S36224; TC 87-CR-1771; CA A48131; SC S36128PublishedCited by 6 opinions

On review from the Court of Appeals.* (Cases Consolidated for Opinion)

1Opinion of the CourtCarson, J.

These three criminal cases, consolidated for opinion, present the following issue: Is a warrantless, purposive, aerial observation from an airplane or helicopter an “unreasonable search” under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. We conclude in each case that the intrusion of the aerial observations did not rise to the level of a search for constitutional purposes. We, therefore, reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of conviction of the trial courts in each of the three cases.

FACTS

State v. Gohring

The Gohring trial court made the following…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. AinsworthOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State v. AinsworthCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  3. State v. GohringCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  4. State v. SessionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  5. State v. ViarCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. RhodesOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State v. RodalCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  3. State v. RussellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  4. Kazlauskas v. KBBP, LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  5. State v. HeckathorneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008

1 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