Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Application of Robertsgreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Roberts v. Mills, 290 Or. at 444 , 622 P.2d 1094 (holding that a juvenile could not be held without probable cause pursuant to the Article I, section 9, prohibition against unreasonable seizures of persons). 2009See, e.g., Roberts v. Mills, 290 Or at 444 (holding that a juvenile could not be held without probable cause pursuant to the Article I, section 9, prohibition against unreasonable seizures of persons). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Matthewsgreen2 sentences1996See State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994) (holding that an officer who stops and detains a person for a traffic infraction must have probable cause under Article I, section 9). 1996See State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994) (holding that an officer who stops and detains a person for a traffic infraction must have probable cause under Article I, section 9). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2020See United States v. Leon, 468 US 897, 915 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 , reh’g den, 468 US 1250 (1984) (stating that “bare conclusio[n]” of wrongdoing is insufficient to establish probable cause). 2020See United States v. Leon, 468 US 897, 915 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 , reh’g den, 468 US 1250 (1984) (stating that “bare conclusio[n]” of wrongdoing is insufficient to establish probable cause). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clomangreen2 sentences1994See State v. Cloman, 254 Or 1, 12 , 456 P2d 67 (1969) (“if the officers had probable cause to arrest, the arrest made is not rendered illegal because the officers expressed another and improper cause for arrest”); see also LaFave, 1 Search and Seizure § 3.2(b) at 566-68, Supp at 113 (1987 & Supp 1994) (indicating that the test should be objective, and that the cases holding that there are both objective and subjective components of probable cause, including State v. Owens, supra, are “not the correct view”). 1994See State v. Cloman, 254 Or 1, 12 , 456 P2d 67 (1969) (“if the officers had probable cause to arrest, the arrest made is not rendered illegal because the officers expressed another and improper cause for arrest”); see also LaFave, 1 Search and Seizure § 3.2(b) at 566-68, Supp at 113 (1987 & Supp 1994) (indicating that the test should be objective, and that the cases holding that there are both objective and subjective components of probable cause, including State v. Owens, supra, are “not the correct view”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rayburn
green
1 sentence2025Probable cause requires “a substantial objective basis for believing that, more likely than not, an offense has been committed and the person to be arrested had committed it.” State v. Rayburn, 246 Or App 486, 490 , 266 P3d 156 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 675 (2012). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Rayburn
green
2 sentences2025Probable cause requires “a substantial objective basis for believing that, more likely than not, an offense has been committed and the person to be arrested had committed it.” State v. Rayburn, 246 Or App 486, 490 , 266 P3d 156 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 675 (2012). 2025Probable cause requires “a substantial objective basis for believing that, more likely than not, an offense has been committed and the person to be arrested had committed it.” State v. Rayburn, 246 Or App 486, 490 , 266 P3d 156 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 675 (2012). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Leon
green
1 sentence2020See United States v. Leon, 468 US 897, 915 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 , reh’g den, 468 US 1250 (1984) (stating that “bare conclusio[n]” of wrongdoing is insufficient to establish probable cause). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Owens
green
2 sentences1994I write separately to express my view that the “subjective” component of probable cause recognized (without citation of any authority) in State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 204 , 729 P2d 524 (1986), is not properly a requirement of probable cause under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. 1 In my view, Article I, section 9, is satisfied when it is objectively reasonable under the circumstances for an officer to believe that a crime has been committed and, thus, that a person or thing is subject to seizure. 1994I write separately to express my view that the “subjective” component of probable cause recognized (without citation of any authority) in State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 204 , 729 P2d 524 (1986), is not properly a requirement of probable cause under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. 1 In my view, Article I, section 9, is satisfied when it is objectively reasonable under the circumstances for an officer to believe that a crime has been committed and, thus, that a person or thing is subject to seizure. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Aguilar v. Texas
red
1 sentence1986Affirmed. 1 Defendants offered in evidence a photograph of a mailbox marked “Old School Wood Prod.” The officer testified that he had never observed that name on a mailbox at the premises searched; he therefore had no cause to put that information in the affidavit. 2 Former ORS 133.545(3) has been slightly modified, in a way not pertinent to this decision, and renumbered ORS 133.545(4). 3 We analyze the probable cause issue under Article I, § 9, and assume that, if the warrant is valid under that provision, it is also valid under the less restrictive “totality of the circumstances” analysis of | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.