Legal Opinion

State v. Ainsworth

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 26, 1990No. TC Nos. 85-3451-C-2, 85-3452-C-2 CA A41480 (Control), A41596 SC S36097PublishedCited by 83 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCarson, J.

The issue in this case is whether purposive aerial observation by police constitutes an “unreasonable search” under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. We conclude that a purposive aerial observation is not, simply by virtue of either of these characteristics, a search for constitutional purposes. Because we determine that defendants’ constitutional rights were not violated in this case, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court’s judgments of conviction.

FACTS

Defendants, husband and wife, live on approximately 14 acres of rural property in…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Horton v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. California v. CiraoloSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  4. State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Dow Chemical Co. v. United States Ex Rel. AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

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

3Cited by83 opinions

  1. State v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  2. State v. JuliusWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. Xiomara Gonzales(075911)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2016
  4. State v. NagelOregon Supreme Court · 1994
  5. State v. WackerOregon Supreme Court · 1993

78 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