-
748 P.2d 72 Oregon Supreme Court December 30, 1987 Nos. TC C82-12-38992; CA A28823; SC S32356
addressee, or an intended recipient of the package; (2) May police officers detain a package in transit without a warrant for purposes of exposure to a trained narcotics detection dog on the basis of reasonable suspicion that the
package contains a controlled substance; and (3) May police search an automobile trunk for a package, previously tested positive for cocaine, which police observe being placed in the trunk?
so that they might later arrest him in * * * his car.”
-
721 P.2d 1357 Oregon Supreme Court July 1, 1986 Nos. DC DA 249576; DA 249577; CA A29759; SC S31637
After surveying the law from the time of the adoption of the Fourth Amendment onward, the Court held that automobiles and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify the search without
“Having thus established that contraband goods concealed and illegally transported in an automobile or other vehicle may be searched for without a warrant, we come now to consider under what circumstances such search may be made. *
custody and that the car was under police control when the search was conducted.
-
688 P.2d 832 Oregon Supreme Court September 25, 1984 Nos. CA A22274; SC S30071
The issue in this case is whether a police inventory of the contents of an impounded automobile without a search warrant violated defendant's right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed by the state
The police patrolled the neighborhood and found an unattended car the suspect may have been driving. With some police remaining at the car, others continued to check the area in an attempt to find the suspect.
Because vehicle searches could not be justified by the rationales advanced, both Mozzetti and Boulet concluded that the police may not search, but may only inventory items of personal property "clearly visible without probing," Mozzetti
-
227 P.3d 695 Oregon Supreme Court February 11, 2010 Nos. CC CM0420629; CA A128857; SC S056239; CC CR030112; CA A128263; SC S056237
Seizures or searches for evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution, conducted without a warrant or without an exception to the warrant requirement, violate Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. Nelson v.
However, a police search of an individual or a vehicle during the investigation of a noncriminal traffic violation, without probable cause and either a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement, violates Article I, section
That signifies that, despite being under arrest, a driver can choose, in response to a request for consent to search the car or other property, either to insist on a search warrant or to voluntarily consent to the requested search.
-
465 P.2d 724 Court of Appeals of Oregon March 5, 1970
Thus, under this principle it would be reasonable to hold that the police may, without obtaining a warrant, search a vehicle if the search is necessary for the safety of the arresting officer, or to avoid the loss of evidence as a
requirement that the police obtain a search warrant; and (3) the police may search without obtaining a warrant if there is probable cause to search and if, under the attendant circumstances of the particular situation, the police have
A week after the arrest the police, without a warrant, searched the car which was being held in the police garage. The defendant’s conviction rested on evidence found in the glove compartment of the car.
-
244 P.3d 360 Oregon Supreme Court December 9, 2010 Nos. CC C052367CR; CA A131117; SC S057189, S057188
A citizen's voluntary consent to a police search is an exception to the requirement of a search warrant.
Then, without advising the defendant that that investigation had been completed, one officer asked the defendant about the contents of two containers that the officer had observed in the car and whether the officer could search the
may be valid.
-
747 P.2d 991 Oregon Supreme Court December 22, 1987 Nos. TC 10-85-09534; CA A41686; SC S34094
The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in that search. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. State v. Bates, 85 Or App 428 , 736 P2d 629 (1987). We reverse.
These principles compel our conclusion that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief
based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant’ the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of
-
149 P.3d 1155 Oregon Supreme Court December 21, 2006 Nos. CC CFH030171; CA A124222; SC S52988
Police officers searched defendant’s van without a warrant after arresting her for driving under the influence of intoxicants.
Under that section, a search conducted without a warrant is deemed unreasonable unless it “fall[s] within one of the few specifically established and carefully delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v.
One exception — the exigent circumstances exception — allows the police to conduct a search without a warrant if the search is both supported by probable cause and conducted under exigent circumstances. State v.
-
624 P.2d 99 Oregon Supreme Court February 18, 1981 Nos. C 79-01-30055, CA 15145, SC 27047
It is clear, however, that a police officer may approach a citizen, identify himself as an officer and ask some preliminary questions without making a "stop.” This is consistent with Terry v.
Here there were no repeated efforts by the police to obtain consent nor statements by them that a warrant would be sought.
In that case police stopped defendant’s car after they observed erratic behavior. When an officer peered into the car, defendant stated "Go ahead and search [the car] because I ain’t got nothing to hide.
-
653 P.2d 942 Oregon Supreme Court November 2, 1982 Nos. CA A20330, SC 28360
The issue in this case is whether a search of defendant’s purse, including the opening of the coin compartment of a wallet within that purse, conducted without a warrant, after defendant was arrested and placed in a police car and
those areas without a warrant. * * * (Footnote omitted.)
and was in the police car being transported to the police station.
-
623 P.2d 630 Oregon Supreme Court January 20, 1981 Nos. TC C 7902 30576, SC 27194
These are sufficient exigent circumstances to justify the officer’s decision to seize the car without a warrant by towing it to a lot subject to police control. The seizure without a warrant was lawful.
Once an automobile is taken into secure custody, the police need not refrain from searching while a warrant is sought. They may search it promptly upon the seizure without waiting for a warrant.
Moreover, it is constitutionally permissible to defer the search of a seized vehicle until it is moved to police controlled premises if exigent circumstances to proceed without a warrant existed at the time of the initial seizure.
-
729 P.2d 524 Oregon Supreme Court November 20, 1986 Nos. TC 85-05-0972; CA A36677; SC S32804, SC S32811
Even if the police observe obvious contraband on the front seat and, therefore, are justified in seizing the car, an entry into the car to seize the contraband is a "search" that must be made in a manner consistent with Article I,
There is no constitutional differentiation in items that the police may search for and seize.
The majority's general rule now is that police officers almost always may seize and search a person or personal effects without a warrant on probable cause alone, except when they enter a house to do so and cannot persuade a judge
-
854 P.2d 421 Oregon Supreme Court July 1, 1993 Nos. CC 89-CR-0958-TM; CA A63346; SC S38790
persons who were in the room. 1 The officers were in uniform and arrived in a marked police car.
Kennedy, supra, 290 Or at 498 (a police officer may approach a citizen, identify himself or herself as an officer, and ask some preliminary questions without making a “stop”).
Long, 463 US 1032, 1049-50 , 103 S Ct 3469 , 77 L Ed 2d 1201 (1983) (officer-safety exception to warrant requirement allowed search of passenger compartment of car); Pennsylvania v.
-
806 P.2d 92 Oregon Supreme Court February 7, 1991 Nos. CC CM88020368, SC S35888
Both the Oregon and United States constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. 4 In order to search a home without a warrant for evidence of crime, the police must act within one of the established exceptions to the
Salsbery told defendant that the police did not have a search warrant and that he always asked first for permission to search.
ORS 133.555(3) provides: “The judge may orally authorize a police officer or a district attorney to sign the judge’s name on a duplicate original warrant.
-
501 P.3d 478 Oregon Supreme Court December 30, 2021 No. S067608
Brown, 301 Or 268, 278 , 721 P2d 1357 (1986), in which it held that an officer may conduct a warrant- less search of a car if “(1) the car was mobile at the time it was stopped by the police; and (2) the police had probable
Consequently, the court ruled that an officer may conduct a warrantless search of a car if “(1) the car was mobile at the time it was stopped by the police; and (2) the police had probable cause to believe that the car con- tained
may be searched without a warrant and without a demonstration of exigent circumstances when police have probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband or crime evidence.”
-
510 P.2d 568 Oregon Supreme Court June 1, 1973
Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence found by police while making an inventory search of her automobile after a lawful arrest, but without a search warrant.
to see it, may be seized without a warrant and used as evidence in a criminal prosecution under certain circumstances.
“In accordance with controlling. police regulations and procedure,” the officer, without a search warrant, inventoried the vehicle’s contents preliminary to impounding to protect the owner, tow company, and police.
-
666 P.2d 802 Oregon Supreme Court June 29, 1983 Nos. CA A23060, SC 28881
On similar reasoning, we declined to suppress evidence seized under a search warrant which a magistrate had endorsed for nighttime execution without adequate findings of need. State v.
This power to search without a warrant and without arrest stems solely from the need of the officer to protect himself or herself from harm during the permissible investigation.
a warrant, without exigent circumstances and over one's protests.
-
585 P.2d 681 Oregon Supreme Court October 24, 1978 Nos. TC 76-1050-C, CA 7784, SC 25562
Defendant was convicted by a jury of robbery in the first degree after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized by the police in a warrant-less search of his person and automobile.
After looking at the ID’s of the two suspects, Officer Myers, according to his own testimony, "asked” them to walk out the back door to his police car so he could run Division of Motor Vehicles and warrant checks on them.
This all brings us to the rule that where the police operate without a warrant the state has the burden of proof (when relying upon a "consent search”) that consent was voluntarily given. State v.
-
456 P.2d 67 Oregon Supreme Court June 18, 1969
It is also true that subject to certain exceptions enumerated in § 629.34 an arrest cannot be made without a warrant.
The court stated: "The legality of an arrest, however, cannot depend exclusively upon the validity of the warrant pursuant to which the arrest is executed since an arrest without a warrant may stand if based on probable cause." 67
The Court approved the search. In State v. McKenzie, 232 Or. 633 , 377 P.2d 18 (1962), the defendant was arrested without a warrant for burglary. When arrested the defendant was near his car.
-
437 P.2d 734 Oregon Supreme Court February 21, 1968
Search of the automobile and seizure of the evidence were without a warrant and, defendant contends, violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
In the Cooper case the court said that “searches of cars that are constantly movable may make the search of a car without a warrant a reasonable one although the result might be the opposite in the search of a home, a store, or other
to have been made as incidental to the arrest and * * * therefore, that the search of the car without a warrant failed to meet the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment * * 376 US at 368 .
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.