Legal Opinion
State v. Dixson
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided December 20, 1988No. TC 84-1821; CA A34586; TC 84-1822; CA A34808; TC 84-1823; CA A34817; SC S34536PublishedCited by 116 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.
The issue in these criminal cases, combined for purposes of appeal, is whether the search and seizure provision in the Oregon Constitution protects land outside the “curtilage” of a residence. The Court of Appeals concluded that it does, and reversed the defendants’ convictions for the manufacture and possession of controlled substances. State v. Dixson/Digby, 87 Or App 1, 740 P2d 1224 (1987) (plurality). We affirm the Court of Appeals conclusion that Article I, section 9, is applicable to lands like those involved in this case, but reverse that court’s application of the rule to these facts.
F…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Oliver v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Gouled v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- See v. City of SeattleSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by116 opinions
- State v. BullockMontana Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. NagelOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. KirchoffSupreme Court of Vermont · 1991
- State v. Clemente-PerezOregon Supreme Court · 2015
- State v. WackerOregon Supreme Court · 1993
111 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.