In an opinion that should produce a bunch of smirks, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that a criminal defendant can be in constructive possession of drugs found inside his co-defendant's vagina. Before we start the inevitable "slippery slope" sort of arguments a case like this is destined to produce, let's look at the facts. In State v. Sherman, an opinion announced by the COA April 22, 2015, the court found that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's MJOA "based on its determination that a reasonable juror could conclude that he constructively possessed 5.67 grams of cocaine found in his codefendant's vagina." Sure.
"... in this day and age, requests for valid government issued identification are commonplace in ordinary dealings in society ..."
In a shameful decision today, the Oregon Supreme Court overruled its own precedent and gutted an important part of the Oregon Constitution's guarantee to all Oregonians that they be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Did you really mean "No Trespassing" when you posted that "No trespassing" sign? According to the State of Oregon, the answer is "well, it depends." It seems that convicted felon Billy Roper wanted to be left alone on his property with his growing marijuana, his methamphetamine and his firearms. (Really, who wouldn't?) In this regard he posted no trespassing signs around and on the gate to his driveway.
Today the Oregon Court of Appeals threw out the Delivery of Methamphetamine conviction of Leonardo Espinoza-Barragan because the police officer who stopped him for driving infractions unlawfully expanded the traffic stop into a drug investigation.
Tomorrow, the US Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases that literally did not pass the smell test. Both involve when and how police may legitimately use drug sniffing dogs to effect warrantless searches and when or how such nosy intrusions on our privacy amount to an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
On January 23, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Jones, discussed here, held that the government's installation of a GPS device on a suspect's car, and the use of that device to monitor the car's movements constitutes a "search" under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus placement of a GPS device on a suspect's car would under normal circumstances require a judicially approved search warrant.
In a stunning case decided yesterday, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that police are free to seek an arrested person's consent to search their home even after that person makes an unequivocal demand to speak to an attorney about whether or not to grant such consent!
In a welcome decision last Thursday, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the "automobile exception" to the search warrant requirement of Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution does not allow a warrantless search of a car when the car is "parked, immobile, and unoccupied" at the time the police encountered it in connection with a crime.