Legal Opinion

State v. Bishop

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 4, 1998No. 9605-34118; CA A96153PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWarren, P. J.

Defendant appeals His convictions for delivery and possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(1) and (4), following a stipulated facts trial. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence acquired as the result of a warrantless search of his person and his vehicle. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the officers in this case did not have probable cause to arrest defendant for giving false information to a police officer and that the officer detained defendant for longer than was reasonably necessary to investigate and verify his identity…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State v. StevensOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. AuerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  4. State v. ScheerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  5. State v. SpruillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. People v. WilliamsColorado Court of Appeals · 2012
  2. State v. BoatmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  3. State v. MiddletonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  4. State v. DurandoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  5. State v. Ruiz-EspinosaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020

2 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