8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jorge Miranda Irene Miranda v. City of Cornelius Acme Towing, Inc.green2 sentences2014Whether the community caretaking doctrine applies in such situations “depends on the location of the vehicle and the police officers’ duty to prevent it from creating a hazard to other drivers or being a target for vandalism or theft.” Miranda, 429 F3d at 864 . 2014As for the community-caretaking exception, we concluded, relying in part on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ reasoning in Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F3d 858 (9th Cir 2005), that, “under the circumstances of this case, community caretaking does not extend to impounding a car from the defendant’s driveway.” Gonzales I, 236 Or App at 403 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Pinegreen2 sentences2014We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in giving the community caretaking instruction, which “probably created an erroneous impression of the law in the minds of the jur[ors] which affected the outcome of the case.” Pine, 336 Or at 210 (brackets in Pine ; internal quotation marks omitted). 2014We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in giving the community caretaking instruction, which “probably created an erroneous impression of the law in the minds of the jur[ors] which affected the outcome of the case.” Pine, 336 Or at 210 (brackets in Pine ; internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. DeArmangreen1 sentence2013State v. DeArman, 54 Wash App 621, 774 P2d 1247, 1249-50 (1989) (holding that officer acting in community caretaking capacity had no reasonable basis to request identification once he determined that driver did not require assistance). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pagegreen2 sentences2013See State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 844 , 103 P3d 454 (2004) (officer stopping pedestrian to check on well-being exceeded community caretaking function by taking pedestrian’s driver’s license and running a warrants check; retention of driver’s license constituted an unreasonable seizure); People v. Gonzalez, 204 Ill 2d 220, 224, 789 NE2d 260 (2003) (officer not entitled to request identification from passenger stopped under community caretaking function where state failed to explain how request served a public safety function). 3 In addition, once it is determined that a person does not require 2013See State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 844 , 103 P3d 454 (2004) (officer stopping pedestrian to check on well-being exceeded community caretaking function by taking pedestrian’s driver’s license and running a warrants check; retention of driver’s license constituted an unreasonable seizure); People v. Gonzalez, 204 Ill 2d 220, 224, 789 NE2d 260 (2003) (officer not entitled to request identification from passenger stopped under community caretaking function where state failed to explain how request served a public safety function). 3 In addition, once it is determined that a person does not require | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Barriosgreen1 sentence2012See U.S. v. Barrios, 374 Fed Appx 56, 57 (2d Cir), cert den,_US_, 131 S Ct 261 (2010) (noting that federal circuits are split on whether vehicle impoundments under the community caretaking exception must be conducted pursuant to standardized procedures). | 1 | 1 |
Lackey v. Patent & Trademark Officegreen1 sentence2012See U.S. v. Barrios, 374 Fed Appx 56, 57 (2d Cir), cert den,_US_, 131 S Ct 261 (2010) (noting that federal circuits are split on whether vehicle impoundments under the community caretaking exception must be conducted pursuant to standardized procedures). | 1 | 1 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshiregreen1 sentence2010Rather, the Court considered whether the seizure of the defendant’s car from his driveway and the subsequent search of it were justified by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. 403 US at 458 (plurality opinion). 6 The state contends that defendant’s driving record reflects a history of driving while suspended in spite of citations for doing so and thus demonstrates the need for a more powerful deterrent. | 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. Gonzales
green
2 sentences2014In the first appeal, State v. Gonzales, 236 Or App 391 , 236 P3d 834 (Gonzales I), adh’d to as modified on recons, 238 Or App 541 , 243 P3d 116 (2010) (Gonzales II), the trial court had denied defendant’s suppression motion after concluding that a police officer was justified in impounding defendant’s car and conducting an inventory search of the car under the “community-caretaking doctrine.” On appeal, we determined that the trial court had erred because the community-caretaking doctrine did not authorize the seizure of defendant’s car. 2014In the first appeal, State v. Gonzales, 236 Or App 391 , 236 P3d 834 (Gonzales I), adh’d to as modified on recons, 238 Or App 541 , 243 P3d 116 (2010) (Gonzales II), the trial court had denied defendant’s suppression motion after concluding that a police officer was justified in impounding defendant’s car and conducting an inventory search of the car under the “community-caretaking doctrine.” On appeal, we determined that the trial court had erred because the community-caretaking doctrine did not authorize the seizure of defendant’s car. | 3 | 2010–2014 |
State v. Gonzales
green
2 sentences2014In the first appeal, State v. Gonzales, 236 Or App 391 , 236 P3d 834 (Gonzales I), adh’d to as modified on recons, 238 Or App 541 , 243 P3d 116 (2010) (Gonzales II), the trial court had denied defendant’s suppression motion after concluding that a police officer was justified in impounding defendant’s car and conducting an inventory search of the car under the “community-caretaking doctrine.” On appeal, we determined that the trial court had erred because the community-caretaking doctrine did not authorize the seizure of defendant’s car. 2014In the first appeal, State v. Gonzales, 236 Or App 391 , 236 P3d 834 (Gonzales I), adh’d to as modified on recons, 238 Or App 541 , 243 P3d 116 (2010) (Gonzales II), the trial court had denied defendant’s suppression motion after concluding that a police officer was justified in impounding defendant’s car and conducting an inventory search of the car under the “community-caretaking doctrine.” On appeal, we determined that the trial court had erred because the community-caretaking doctrine did not authorize the seizure of defendant’s car. | 2 | 2012–2014 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2014“State v. Davis, 295 Or 227 , 666 P2d 802 (1983), cited in the ruling of the Court, June 24, 2010, p 2 [.]” (First set of brackets in original.) The community-caretaking instruction that the court gave reads, in full: “COMMUNITY CARETAKING “Any police officer of this state is authorized to perform community care-taking functions. 2014“State v. Davis, 295 Or 227 , 666 P2d 802 (1983), cited in the ruling of the Court, June 24, 2010, p 2 [.]” (First set of brackets in original.) The community-caretaking instruction that the court gave reads, in full: “COMMUNITY CARETAKING “Any police officer of this state is authorized to perform community care-taking functions. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Oneill
green
2 sentences2014State v. Oneill, 251 Or App 424, 427 , 285 P3d 1127 (2012) (quoting Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F3d 858, 864 (9th Cir 2005)). 2014State v. Oneill, 251 Or App 424, 427 , 285 P3d 1127 (2012) (quoting Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F3d 858, 864 (9th Cir 2005)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
1 sentence2013See State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 844 , 103 P3d 454 (2004) (officer stopping pedestrian to check on well-being exceeded community caretaking function by taking pedestrian’s driver’s license and running a warrants check; retention of driver’s license constituted an unreasonable seizure); People v. Gonzalez, 204 Ill 2d 220, 224, 789 NE2d 260 (2003) (officer not entitled to request identification from passenger stopped under community caretaking function where state failed to explain how request served a public safety function). 3 In addition, once it is determined that a person does not require | 1 | 2013–2013 |
South Dakota v. Opperman
green
1 sentence2010It notes that, in Opperman , the Supreme Court referred to “the interests of public safety” in describing community caretaking. 428 US at 368 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Colorado v. Bertine
green
2 sentences2010Since deciding Opperman , the Supreme Court has not elaborated on the community caretaking doctrine with respect to impounding vehicles except to hold, in Colorado v. Bertine, 479 US 367, 373-74 , 107 S Ct 738 , 93 L Ed 2d 739 (1987), that impoundment is reasonable even though less intrusive alternatives might be available. 2010Since deciding Opperman , the Supreme Court has not elaborated on the community caretaking doctrine with respect to impounding vehicles except to hold, in Colorado v. Bertine, 479 US 367, 373-74 , 107 S Ct 738 , 93 L Ed 2d 739 (1987), that impoundment is reasonable even though less intrusive alternatives might be available. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.