Legal Opinion
State v. Ford
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided November 26, 1990No. TC 10-87-01668; CA A45907; SC S36906PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*625VAN HOOMISSEN, J.
Defendant appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. He contends that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained by police officers after a search allegedly conducted in violation of the “knock and announce” rule, ORS 133.235(6),1 and of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals found an “aggravated” statutory violation requiring suppression, and ordered a new trial.2 State v. Ford, 99 Or App 1, 780 P2d 1192 (1989). Assuming…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Ker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Nix v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Minnesota v. OlsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Murray v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Jones v. General Motors Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. AttawayNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. ToevsOregon Supreme Court · 1998
- State v. VargasNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1995
- Van De Hey v. United States National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1992
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.