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.
11 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Juarez-Godinezgreen1 sentence2018See **169 Juarez-Godinez , 326 Or. at 6 , 942 P.2d 772 (explaining that cases addressing the seizures of persons are instructive in deciding when property has been seized unconstitutionally). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Atkinsongreen2 sentences1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c 1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c | 1 | 1 |
State v. O'NEALgreen2 sentences1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c 1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Krognessgreen2 sentences1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c 1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c | 1 | 1 |
Bullard v. Floridagreen1 sentence1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c | 1 | 1 |
Krogness v. Oregongreen1 sentence1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Anfieldgreen2 sentences1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c 1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Batesgreen2 sentences1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c 1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Owensgreen2 sentences1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c 1994See State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1, 7 , 688 P.2d 832 (1984) (holding that a policy may be adopted and uniformly administered to inventory the contents of vehicles in order to protect private property and for ancillary purposes). [3] Although State v. Ehly, supra , and State v. Bates, 304 Or. 519 , 747 P.2d 991 (1987) are "Terry stop" cases rather than search incident to arrest cases, the rationale behind the "officer safety" exception is identical in both contexts. [4] See State v. Anfield, 313 Or. 554, 562 , 836 P.2d 1337 (1992) (addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment argument, noting that a c | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Edward D. Patterson, Richard L. Flintoff, Jimmie R. Oglesby, and Gregory C. Martinsongreen1 sentence1983"Defendants argue that they were automatically under arrest once they were handcuffed because from that moment on they were `not free to leave.' * * * A brief but complete restriction of liberty, if not excessive under the circumstances, is permissible during a Terry stop and does not necessarily convert the stop into an arrest. [ United States v. Patterson, 648 F.2d 625, 632-33 (9th Cir.1981)]. * * " The initial handcuffing in this case was not excessive. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Juan Manuel Bautista, United States of America v. Javier Cabrera-Martinezgreen1 sentence1983As the court explained in United States v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286, 1289-90 (9th Cir.1982), involving an investigatory stop of suspects in a bank robbery: "On the one hand, handcuffing substantially aggravates the intrusiveness of an otherwise routine investigatory detention and is not part of a typical Terry stop. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Valdezgreen2 sentences1983See State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621 , 561 P2d 1006 (1977). 1983See State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621 , 561 P2d 1006 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Ybarra v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1980The 'narrow scope’ of the Terry exception does not permit a frisk for weapons on less than *613 reasonable belief or suspicion directed at the person to be frisked, even though that person happens to be on premises where an authorized narcotics search is taking place.” 62 L Ed 2d at 246, 247 . 1980The 'narrow scope’ of the Terry exception does not permit a frisk for weapons on less than *613 reasonable belief or suspicion directed at the person to be frisked, even though that person happens to be on premises where an authorized narcotics search is taking place.” 62 L Ed 2d at 246, 247 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1985The “stop” statute was enacted in Oregon following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio, 372 US 1 , 88 S Ct 1868 , 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968), but is more limited in its application than is the Terry rule. 1985The “stop” statute was enacted in Oregon following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio, 372 US 1 , 88 S Ct 1868 , 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968), but is more limited in its application than is the Terry rule. | 3 | 1980–1990 |
State v. Hall
green
2 sentences2010Or, for example, if the state made the necessary record to establish that a suspected crime victim was about to interfere with an officer’s apprehension of the suspect, a stop pursuant to ORS 131.615 (a Terry stop) could be justified. 2 The state makes no argument in the present case that even if defendant was unlawfully stopped,the discovery of the evidence was otherwise inevitable or sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful police conduct under the analysis of State v. Hall, 339 Or 7, 25 , 115 P3d 908 (2005). 2010Or, for example, if the state made the necessary record to establish that a suspected crime victim was about to interfere with an officer’s apprehension of the suspect, a stop pursuant to ORS 131.615 (a Terry stop) could be justified. 2 The state makes no argument in the present case that even if defendant was unlawfully stopped,the discovery of the evidence was otherwise inevitable or sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful police conduct under the analysis of State v. Hall, 339 Or 7, 25 , 115 P3d 908 (2005). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Michigan v. Long
green
1 sentence1993Michigan v. Long, supra, 463 US at 1050 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Adams v. Williams
green
2 sentences1986In Adams v. Williams, 407 US 143 , 92 S Ct 1921 , 32 L Ed 2d 612 (1972), the Court upheld a Terry stop based on a tip from an informant. 1986In Adams v. Williams, 407 US 143 , 92 S Ct 1921 , 32 L Ed 2d 612 (1972), the Court upheld a Terry stop based on a tip from an informant. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
New Jersey v. New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad
green
2 sentences1985The “stop” statute was enacted in Oregon following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio, 372 US 1 , 88 S Ct 1868 , 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968), but is more limited in its application than is the Terry rule. 1985The “stop” statute was enacted in Oregon following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio, 372 US 1 , 88 S Ct 1868 , 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968), but is more limited in its application than is the Terry rule. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Cloman
green
2 sentences1979In State v. Cloman, 254 Or. 1 , 456 P.2d 67 (1969), the Oregon Supreme Court extended the Terry stop to motor vehicles and noted reasonable suspicion "to be of less quantum than probable cause to arrest." 254 Or. at 6 , 456 P.2d at 69 . 1979In State v. Cloman, 254 Or. 1 , 456 P.2d 67 (1969), the Oregon Supreme Court extended the Terry stop to motor vehicles and noted reasonable suspicion "to be of less quantum than probable cause to arrest." 254 Or. at 6 , 456 P.2d at 69 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.