Legal Opinion

State v. Raymond

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 21, 2015No. 211118438; A151090PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, C. J.

The state appeals an order granting defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress urinalysis results, challenging, inter alia, the trial court’s ruling that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution did not excuse the warrantless procurement of a urine sample from defendant. See ORS 138.060(l)(c) (authorizing state to appeal pretrial order suppressing evidence). We conclude that, because the circumstances under which the urine sample was procured were exigent, there is no state law basis for suppression of the urinalysis results.…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  2. State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State v. StevensOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  5. State v. NagelOregon Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State of Iowa v. Christopher George StormSupreme Court of Iowa · 2017
  2. State v. PerrymanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  3. Amended September 18, 2017 State of Iowa v. Christopher George StormSupreme Court of Iowa · 2017
  4. State of Iowa v. Christopher George StormSupreme Court of Iowa · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API