announcement requirement in Oregon

1992The only right of privacy protected by the announcement requirement is the right to know who is entering, why he is entering, and a few seconds to prepare for his entry.” 264 Or at 60 .

1990The only right of privacy protected by the announcement requirement is the right to know who is entering, why he is entering, and a few seconds to prepare for his entry." 264 Or. at 60 , 504 P.2d 84 .

1989As recognized in State v. Valentine/Darroch, 264 Or. 54, 60 , 504 P.2d 84 (1972), cert. den. 412 U.S. 948 , 93 S.Ct. 3001 , 37 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1973), in discussing the announcement requirement under the federal constitution, the protection offered by that requirement is a "few seconds to prepare for * * * entry." Because the announcement was given here before entry, the statute was not violated.

1989As recognized in State v. Valentine/Darroch, 264 Or 54, 60 , 504 P2d 84 (1972), cert den 412 US 948 (1973), in discussing the announcement requirement under the federal constitution, the protection offered by that requirement is a “few seconds to prepare for * * * entry.” Because the announcement was given here before entry, the statute was not violated.

1979The United States Supreme Court, in Ker v. California, 374 US 23 , 83 S Ct 1623 , 10 L Ed 726 (1963), held that "an officer’s failure to comply with the announcement requirement, when it is applicable, renders the ensuing search and seizure unreasonable and therefore in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Accord, State v. Valentine/Darroch, 264 Or 54, 57 , 504 P2d 84 (1973), cert den 412 US 948 (1973).

1979The United States Supreme Court, in Ker v. California, 374 US 23 , 83 S Ct 1623 , 10 L Ed 726 (1963), held that "an officer’s failure to comply with the announcement requirement, when it is applicable, renders the ensuing search and seizure unreasonable and therefore in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Accord, State v. Valentine/Darroch, 264 Or 54, 57 , 504 P2d 84 (1973), cert den 412 US 948 (1973).

1992(Emphasis supplied.) In State v. Bost, 114 Or App 519 , 837 P2d 536 (1992), the defendants were brothers.

1992(Emphasis supplied.) In State v. Bost, 114 Or App 519 , 837 P2d 536 (1992), the defendants were brothers.

1992In State v. Arce, 83 Or App 185 , 730 P2d 1260 (1986), rev den 303 Or 332 (1987), the officers executed a search warrant that specifically authorized them to enter the residence without first announcing their presence or purpose.

1992In State v. Arce, 83 Or App 185 , 730 P2d 1260 (1986), rev den 303 Or 332 (1987), the officers executed a search warrant that specifically authorized them to enter the residence without first announcing their presence or purpose.

1990In State v. Bishop, supra, 288 Or. at 355 , 605 P.2d 642 , we stated: "The right of the occupants of the premises which is protected by the rule is really their right to be warned that their privacy is about to be legally invaded.

1990In State v. Bishop, supra, 288 Or. at 355 , 605 P.2d 642 , we stated: "The right of the occupants of the premises which is protected by the rule is really their right to be warned that their privacy is about to be legally invaded.

1989As recognized in State v. Valentine/Darroch, 264 Or. 54, 60 , 504 P.2d 84 (1972), cert. den. 412 U.S. 948 , 93 S.Ct. 3001 , 37 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1973), in discussing the announcement requirement under the federal constitution, the protection offered by that requirement is a "few seconds to prepare for * * * entry." Because the announcement was given here before entry, the statute was not violated.

1973But even if the constitutional issue were clearly raised, there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that this case comes within well-recognized exceptions to the announcement requirement: “THE COURT: * * * * * “The circumstances justified the invasion by the police authorities, both for their own personal safety and also to prevent the destruction of evidence.” State v. Mitchell, 6 Or App 378 , 487 P2d 1156 , Sup Ct review denied (1971); State v. Gassner, supra. *599 Defendant next complains about the trial court’s instructions defining the elements of a criminal co

1973But even if the constitutional issue were clearly raised, there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that this case comes within well-recognized exceptions to the announcement requirement: “THE COURT: * * * * * “The circumstances justified the invasion by the police authorities, both for their own personal safety and also to prevent the destruction of evidence.” State v. Mitchell, 6 Or App 378 , 487 P2d 1156 , Sup Ct review denied (1971); State v. Gassner, supra. *599 Defendant next complains about the trial court’s instructions defining the elements of a criminal co

1972Sabbath v. United States, supra ( 391 US 585 ), and Mr. Justice Brennan’s dissent in Ker v. California, supra ( 374 US at 46 ).

1972Sabbath v. United States, supra ( 391 U.S. 585 , 88 S.Ct. 1755 ), and Mr. Justice Brennan's dissent in Ker v. California, supra ( 374 U.S. at 46 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 ).

1972State v. Monteith, 4 Or App 90 , 477 P2d 224 (1970).

1972State v. Monteith, 4 Or App 90 , 477 P2d 224 (1970).

1902He says: “But no injunction can be issued against officers of a state to restrain or control the use of property already in the possession of the state, or money in its treasury, when the suit is commenced; or to compel the state to perform its obligations; or where the state has otherwise such an interest in the object of the suit as to be a necessary party.” Preceding the announcement of this rule, he makes another touching the question as to when an injunction will lie: “In.a suit to which the state is neither formally nor really a party, its officers, although acting by its order and for i

1902The converse of the proposition is equally true, that, where the purpose of the suit is to restrain the doing of all such acts as constitute breaches or infractions of the contract, and thereby indirectly to compel the specific performance of the contract, it is likewise a suit against the state, and the court is without jurisdiction in either case to give relief: Ex parte Ayres, 123 U. S. 443 (8 Sup. Ct. 164).