Legal Opinion

State v. Haines

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 2, 1983No. 10-81-08625; CA A25334; 10-81-08624, CA A25335PublishedCited by 6 opinions

(Cases Consolidated)

1Opinion of the CourtNewman, J.

The state appeals pretrial orders granting defendants’ motions to controvert search warrants and to suppress evidence seized under them. We affirm.

Defendants were charged in separate indictments with unlawful manufacture of marijuana, a felony, in violation of ORS 475.992. Because the affidavits that support the search warrants, the search warrants themselves, the motions to suppress and controvert, the stipulated facts and the court orders allowing the motions were identical in each case, the cases were, by consent of the parties, consolidated on appeal.

The affidavit of Officer Smit…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. VentrescaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. State v. DiazCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  3. State v. HughesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1975
  4. State v. HarwoodCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  5. State of Oregon v. ElliottOregon Supreme Court · 1954

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. McBrideCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  2. State v. HarpCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  3. State v. PayneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  4. State v. SloanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  5. State v. ChristiansenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

1 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