Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Lorenzo

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided August 28, 2014No. CC C100238CR; CA A145826; SC S060969Published

1DissentWalters, J.

I respectfully dissent. I accept, as does the majority, that the officer’s opening of defendant’s apartment door and his knock on defendant’s bedroom door violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. I do not agree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that that constitutional violation did not give the officer an advantage in gaining defendant’s consent to search. 356 Or at 144. Instead, I agree with the Court of Appeals that “the events leading up to defendant’s consent to the search of his bedroom flowed quickly and directly from the officer’s entry into the apartment” and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. UngerOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  2. State v. LorenzoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API