Legal Opinion

State v. Middaugh

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 5, 1973PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThoenton, J.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for criminal activity in drugs, ORS 167.207, contending that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence. Here, as in his motion, the defendant asserts that the dangerous drug introduced against him, amphetamine sulfate, is the product of an illegal search and seizure.

After the denial of the suppression motion, and trial before the court without a jury, the court found the defendant guilty, suspended the imposition of sentence and placed the defendant on probation for a term of three years. As a condition of probation the trial…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Frazier v. CuppSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. People v. CarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  5. State v. KeithCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1970

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. ClineNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. People v. SandersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
  3. State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  4. State v. FrameCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  5. State v. GillespieCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1977

6 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