Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Krause

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 21, 2016No. C130349CR; A154713Published

1DissentEgan, J.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the search of the Altoids tin was justified as a search incident to defendant’s arrest. I believe that the search was unreasonable in light of the circumstances presented in this case, and that the contents of the tin should have been suppressed.

Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure.” “A search conducted without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable.” State v. Hite, 198 Or App 1, 6, 107 P3d…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United States v. ChadwickSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  4. State v. CaraherOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  5. State v. FloresCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984

5 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