State v. Olson (1979)
green
· 162 citation events
across 6 courts.
Showing the 9 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197920022026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
People v. Abney (1980)
Compare United States v. Killebrew (6th Cir. 1977), 560 F.2d 729, 734 (occupant not known to be dangerous); State v. Olson (1979), 287 Or. 157, 165 , 598 P.2d 670, 674 (burglary suspect not known to be armed); Commonwealth v. Williams (1978), 483 Pa. 293, 300 , 396 A.2d 1177, 1180 , cert, denied (Apr. 21, 1980), 48 U.S.L.W. 3674 (rifle used in homicide was in possession of police prior to entry); People v. Ramey (1976), 16 Cal. 3d 263, 276 , 545 P.2d 1333, 1341 , 127 Cal. Rp…
green
People v. Abney (1980)
Compare United States v. Killebrew (6th Cir.1977), 560 F.2d 729, 734 (occupant not known to be dangerous); State v. Olson (1979), 287 Or. 157, 165 , 598 P.2d 670, 674 (burglary suspect not known to be armed); Commonwealth v. Williams (1978), 483 Pa. 293, 300 , 396 A.2d 1177, 1180 , cert. denied (Apr. 21, 1980), 48 U.S.L.W. 3674 (rifle used in homicide was in possession of police prior to entry); People v. Ramey (1976), 16 Cal.3d 263, 276 , 545 P.2d 1333, 1341 , 127 Cal. Rptr…
green
State v. Unger (2014)
See Brown, 422 US at 593-94, 604-05 (where officers broke into the defendant’s apartment, searched it, and arrested him at gunpoint without probable cause, the defendant’s subse- quent statements were tainted by flagrant police miscon- duct); State v. Olson, 287 Or 157, 159-60, 166 , 598 P2d 670 (1979) (where officers entered the defendant’s home at night without consent and arrested him, the defendant’s subse- quent statements were tainted by police misconduct).10 By seekin…
where officers entered the defendant’s home at night without consent and arrested him, the defendant’s subse- quent statements were tainted by police misconduct
green
State v. Unger (2014)
See Brown, 422 US at 593-94, 604-05 (where officers broke into the defendant’s apartment, searched it, and arrested him at gunpoint without probable cause, the defendant’s subse- quent statements were tainted by flagrant police miscon- duct); State v. Olson, 287 Or 157, 159-60, 166 , 598 P2d 670 (1979) (where officers entered the defendant’s home at night without consent and arrested him, the defendant’s subse- quent statements were tainted by police misconduct).10 By seekin…
where officers entered the defendant’s home at night without consent and arrested him, the defendant’s subse- quent statements were tainted by police misconduct
green
People v. Foskey (1990)
App. 3d 7, 11 (there was nothing to support the conclusion that there was any danger from weapons which called for a warrantless entry); United States v. Killebrew (6th Cir. 1977), 560 F.2d 729, 734 (occupant not known to be dangerous); State v. Olson (1979), 287 Or. 157, 165 , 598 P.2d 670, 674 (burglary suspect not known to be armed); Commonwealth v. Williams (1978), 483 Pa. 293, 300 , 396 A.2d 1177, 1180 (rifle used in the homicide was in possession of police prior to ent…
green
State v. Dahl (1996)
See Olson, 287 Or. at 165 , 598 P.2d 670 (stating that principle under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and holding that the application of ORS 133.235(5) [8] would be an unconstitutional application where there are no exigent circumstances); [9] Payton v. New York, 445 *986 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (stating same principle under Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States).
green
State v. White (1992)
Accord State v. Olson, 287 Or. 157, 164-65 , 598 P.2d 670 (1979); State v. Peller, 287 Or. 255, 260-62 , 598 P.2d 684 (1979).
green
State v. Peller (1979)
See State v. Warner, 284 Or 147, 156-59 , 585 P2d 681 (1978). 1 The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures.” The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable * * * — subject to *261 only a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 US 34…