Legal Opinion

State v. De La Rosa

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 27, 2009No. 060130106; A133793PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

After the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence that a police officer found in her automobile and apartment, defendant was convicted of manufacture, delivery, and possession of a controlled substance. She appeals, arguing, as she did at a pretrial hearing, that the searches violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution in several respects. We affirm.

The trial court found the following facts, which, because they are supported by evidence, we are bound to accept. State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66, 75, 854 P2d 421 (1993). Portland Police Officers had set up a drug…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Spinelli v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 2003
  4. State v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. MacielCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  2. State v. Soto-NavarroCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
  3. State v. BAKER/JAYCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  4. State v. Meza-GarciaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  5. State v. WestcottCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016

4 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