section 9 exclusions in Oregon

1998Dept. v. Rogers, 314 Or 114, 119 , 836 P2d 127 (1992) (the exclusion of evidence under Article I, section 9, is “based on the personal right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure,” in contrast to deterring police misconduct (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Davis, 313 Or 246, 253-54 , 834 P2d 1008 (1992) (“If th[e] constitutional right [under Article I, section 9] to be secure against impermissible government conduct is to be effective, it must mean that the government cannot obtain a criminal conviction through the use of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s ri

1998Dept. v. Rogers, 314 Or 114, 119 , 836 P2d 127 (1992) (the exclusion of evidence under Article I, section 9, is “based on the personal right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure,” in contrast to deterring police misconduct (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Davis, 313 Or 246, 253-54 , 834 P2d 1008 (1992) (“If th[e] constitutional right [under Article I, section 9] to be secure against impermissible government conduct is to be effective, it must mean that the government cannot obtain a criminal conviction through the use of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s ri

2005“This court has stated that, ‘unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which has been based on deterring police misconduct, exclusions under Article I, section 9, have been based on the personal right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure.’ State v. Kosta, 304 Or 549, 553 , 748 P2d 72 (1987).

2005“This court has stated that, ‘unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which has been based on deterring police misconduct, exclusions under Article I, section 9, have been based on the personal right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure.’ State v. Kosta, 304 Or 549, 553 , 748 P2d 72 (1987).

2014In Davis , the Oregon Supreme Court explained the history and underlying principles of the exclusionary rule of Article I, section 9. 295 Or at 231-37 .

1987State v. Tanner, 304 Or. 312, 315 , 745 P.2d 757 (1987); State v. Davis, 295 Or. 227, 231-37 , 666 P.2d 802 (1983); State v. Laundy, 103 Or. 443, 494 , 204 P. 958 , 206 P. 290 (1922).

2002State v. Laundy, 103 Or 443 , 204 P 958 , reh’g den, 103 Or 443 (1922), further informs our conclusion that defendant is not entitled to exclusion of the evidence under Article I, section 9, because no personal section 9 right of his was implicated until after the baggies were seized.

2002State v. Laundy, 103 Or 443 , 204 P 958 , reh’g den, 103 Or 443 (1922), further informs our conclusion that defendant is not entitled to exclusion of the evidence under Article I, section 9, because no personal section 9 right of his was implicated until after the baggies were seized.

2002Today's decision, although it distinguishes the case, does nothing to imply that, were the court required to address the issue, we would adhere to the Quinn search and seizure analysis." Weaver, 319 Or. at 224 , 874 P.2d 1322 (Gillette, J., concurring). [3] I note that the Oregon Supreme Court "has stated that, `unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which has been based on deterring police misconduct, exclusions under Article I, section 9, have been based on the personal right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure.'" State ex. rel .

2002Today's decision, although it distinguishes the case, does nothing to imply that, were the court required to address the issue, we would adhere to the Quinn search and seizure analysis." Weaver, 319 Or. at 224 , 874 P.2d 1322 (Gillette, J., concurring). [3] I note that the Oregon Supreme Court "has stated that, `unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which has been based on deterring police misconduct, exclusions under Article I, section 9, have been based on the personal right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure.'" State ex. rel .

1998Dept. v. Rogers, 314 Or 114, 119 , 836 P2d 127 (1992) (the exclusion of evidence under Article I, section 9, is “based on the personal right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure,” in contrast to deterring police misconduct (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Davis, 313 Or 246, 253-54 , 834 P2d 1008 (1992) (“If th[e] constitutional right [under Article I, section 9] to be secure against impermissible government conduct is to be effective, it must mean that the government cannot obtain a criminal conviction through the use of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s ri

1998Dept. v. Rogers, 314 Or 114, 119 , 836 P2d 127 (1992) (the exclusion of evidence under Article I, section 9, is “based on the personal right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure,” in contrast to deterring police misconduct (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Davis, 313 Or 246, 253-54 , 834 P2d 1008 (1992) (“If th[e] constitutional right [under Article I, section 9] to be secure against impermissible government conduct is to be effective, it must mean that the government cannot obtain a criminal conviction through the use of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s ri

1996In State v. Simons, 86 Or.App. 34 , 738 P.2d 590 , rev. den. 304 Or. 437 , 746 P.2d 1166 (1987), we held that, when possession is a material element of the charged offense, it is denied by a not guilty plea, and the defendant is not required to claim an interest in the contraband in order to seek its exclusion under Article I, section 9, as having been obtained through an unlawful search or seizure.

1996In State v. Simons, 86 Or.App. 34 , 738 P.2d 590 , rev. den. 304 Or. 437 , 746 P.2d 1166 (1987), we held that, when possession is a material element of the charged offense, it is denied by a not guilty plea, and the defendant is not required to claim an interest in the contraband in order to seek its exclusion under Article I, section 9, as having been obtained through an unlawful search or seizure.

1996I feel compelled to follow State v. MacDonald, 105 Or App 102 , 803 P2d 1211 (1990), rev den 311 Or 433 (1991), and other recent decisions by this court that hold that a defendant who denies having a possessoiy or ownership interest in the contraband that he or she is charged with possessing is foreclosed from seeking its exclusion under Article I, section 9.

1996I feel compelled to follow State v. MacDonald, 105 Or App 102 , 803 P2d 1211 (1990), rev den 311 Or 433 (1991), and other recent decisions by this court that hold that a defendant who denies having a possessoiy or ownership interest in the contraband that he or she is charged with possessing is foreclosed from seeking its exclusion under Article I, section 9.

1987State v. Tanner, 304 Or. 312, 315 , 745 P.2d 757 (1987); State v. Davis, 295 Or. 227, 231-37 , 666 P.2d 802 (1983); State v. Laundy, 103 Or. 443, 494 , 204 P. 958 , 206 P. 290 (1922).

1987State v. Tanner, 304 Or. 312, 315 , 745 P.2d 757 (1987); State v. Davis, 295 Or. 227, 231-37 , 666 P.2d 802 (1983); State v. Laundy, 103 Or. 443, 494 , 204 P. 958 , 206 P. 290 (1922).

1986In State v. McMurphy, 291 Or 782 , 635 P2d 372 (1981), the court held that “the deterrent effect on future practices against others, though a desired consequence, is not the constitutional basis for respecting the rights of a defendant against whom the state proposes to use evidence already seized.

1986In State v. McMurphy, 291 Or 782 , 635 P2d 372 (1981), the court held that “the deterrent effect on future practices against others, though a desired consequence, is not the constitutional basis for respecting the rights of a defendant against whom the state proposes to use evidence already seized.