Crabtree v. Paulus
CRABTREE Et Al, Petitioners, v. PAULUS, Respondent
Opinion
*327 PER CURIAM This petition concerns the same ballot title examined in Remington v. Paulus, 296 Or 317 , 675 P2d 485 (1984). Petitioners argue that the original title was insufficient or unfair because it created the impression that evidence seized in violation of the federal constitution would be admissible in criminal prosecutions. We believe that the modified ballot title answers this objection. They also argue that this title failed to advise the citizenry of the state that they are giving up a powerful tool and forfeiting several constitutional protections. Statements about the effect of proposed measures have no place in ballot titles.
Teledyne Wah Chang v. Paulus, 295 Or 762, 767 , 670 P2d 1021 (1983). They also contend that the use of the word “reliable” in the ballot title is unfair because the public could think that “reliable” indicates the evidence is necessarily truthful. We find that the use of this word is not unfair, if set off in quotation marks to show that the proposed amendment, rather than the respondent or this court uses this word.
Ballot title certified as modified in Remington v. Paulus, supra.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.