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 2012–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mangoldgreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., Opperman, 428 US at 375 (noting specifically that “[t]he owner, having left his car illegally parked for an extended period, * * * was not present to make other arrangements for the safekeeping of his belongings”); State v. Mangold, 82 NJ 575, 586, 414 A2d 1312, 1317 (1980) (“If in fact the principle [sic] justifications for an inventory are to protect the property in the vehicle and to shield the authorities from false claims relating to those items, it would seem only reasonable to consult with the owner * * * when he is present * * *.”).3 Given the purposes of the inventory excep | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blissgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Bliss, 363 Or 426, 438 , 423 P3d 53 (2018) (automobile exception); State v. Bates, 304 Or 519, 524 , 747 P2d 991 (1987) (officer safety exception); State v. Anfield, 313 Or 554, 561 , 836 P2d 1337 (1992) (search incident to arrest). 2020See State v. Bliss, 363 Or 426, 438 , 423 P3d 53 (2018) (automobile exception); State v. Bates, 304 Or 519, 524 , 747 P2d 991 (1987) (officer safety exception); State v. Anfield, 313 Or 554, 561 , 836 P2d 1337 (1992) (search incident to arrest). | 1 | 1 |
South Dakota v. Oppermangreen2 sentences2020The Supreme Court in Opperman defined the inventory exception as follows: “The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience[,] * * * generally follow[ing] a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles’ contents.” 428 US at 369 . 2020See, e.g., Opperman, 428 US at 375 (noting specifically that “[t]he owner, having left his car illegally parked for an extended period, * * * was not present to make other arrangements for the safekeeping of his belongings”); State v. Mangold, 82 NJ 575, 586, 414 A2d 1312, 1317 (1980) (“If in fact the principle [sic] justifications for an inventory are to protect the property in the vehicle and to shield the authorities from false claims relating to those items, it would seem only reasonable to consult with the owner * * * when he is present * * *.”).3 Given the purposes of the inventory excep | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Williams, 227 Or App 453, 455-56 , 206 P3d 269 (2009) (describing 4 We emphasize that our holding regarding the application of the inventory exception to the warrant requirement does not preclude officers from relying on other well-established exceptions that may apply in specific circumstances. 2020See State v. Williams, 227 Or App 453, 455-56 , 206 P3d 269 (2009) (describing 4 We emphasize that our holding regarding the application of the inventory exception to the warrant requirement does not preclude officers from relying on other well-established exceptions that may apply in specific circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stinstromgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Stinstrom, 261 Or App 186, 190-91 , 322 P3d 1076 (2014) (explaining that, for 296 State v. Edwards purposes of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, the inventory exception can authorize a warrantless search but not a warrantless seizure). 2020See State v. Stinstrom, 261 Or App 186, 190-91 , 322 P3d 1076 (2014) (explaining that, for 296 State v. Edwards purposes of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, the inventory exception can authorize a warrantless search but not a warrantless seizure). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mundtgreen1 sentence2014Both are legitimate purposes for inventories of impounded property.” 98 Or App at 412 (citation omitted). | 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. Fulmer
green
2 sentences2020And, as emphasized in Fulmer, “the inventory exception to the warrant requirement applies only when its use serves the administrative purposes that justify the exception and is consistent with the rights protected by Article I, section 9.” 366 Or at 233 . 2020In that case, the court reiterated its holding from State v. Atkinson, 298 Or 1 , 688 P2d 832 (1984), and its progeny that exceptions to the warrant requirement—including the inventory exception— must be applied “consistently with the purposes animating the exception.” Fulmer, 366 Or at 233-34 . | 3 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Atkinson
green
2 sentences2020In that case, the court reiterated its holding from State v. Atkinson, 298 Or 1 , 688 P2d 832 (1984), and its progeny that exceptions to the warrant requirement—including the inventory exception— must be applied “consistently with the purposes animating the exception.” Fulmer, 366 Or at 233-34 . 2020In that case, the court reiterated its holding from State v. Atkinson, 298 Or 1 , 688 P2d 832 (1984), and its progeny that exceptions to the warrant requirement—including the inventory exception— must be applied “consistently with the purposes animating the exception.” Fulmer, 366 Or at 233-34 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Dilallo
green
2 sentences2021As to defendant’s third assignment of error—that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it need not arrive at unanimous guilty verdicts—that argument is foreclosed by State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340 , 478 P3d 509 (2020) (hold- ing that, where defendant did not preserve a nonunanimous-jury argument and the jury was not polled, it was not appropriate to exercise discretion to review jury-instruction assignment as plain error). 586 State v. Dennis see State v. Banks, 103 Or App 312, 314-15 , 797 P2d 383 (1990) (explaining that “[e]vidence of identity is not an ele- ment of the offense of 2021As to defendant’s third assignment of error—that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it need not arrive at unanimous guilty verdicts—that argument is foreclosed by State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340 , 478 P3d 509 (2020) (hold- ing that, where defendant did not preserve a nonunanimous-jury argument and the jury was not polled, it was not appropriate to exercise discretion to review jury-instruction assignment as plain error). 586 State v. Dennis see State v. Banks, 103 Or App 312, 314-15 , 797 P2d 383 (1990) (explaining that “[e]vidence of identity is not an ele- ment of the offense of | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Tracy Banks
green
2 sentences2021As to defendant’s third assignment of error—that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it need not arrive at unanimous guilty verdicts—that argument is foreclosed by State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340 , 478 P3d 509 (2020) (hold- ing that, where defendant did not preserve a nonunanimous-jury argument and the jury was not polled, it was not appropriate to exercise discretion to review jury-instruction assignment as plain error). 586 State v. Dennis see State v. Banks, 103 Or App 312, 314-15 , 797 P2d 383 (1990) (explaining that “[e]vidence of identity is not an ele- ment of the offense of 2021As to defendant’s third assignment of error—that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it need not arrive at unanimous guilty verdicts—that argument is foreclosed by State v. Dilallo, 367 Or 340 , 478 P3d 509 (2020) (hold- ing that, where defendant did not preserve a nonunanimous-jury argument and the jury was not polled, it was not appropriate to exercise discretion to review jury-instruction assignment as plain error). 586 State v. Dennis see State v. Banks, 103 Or App 312, 314-15 , 797 P2d 383 (1990) (explaining that “[e]vidence of identity is not an ele- ment of the offense of | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Perry
green
2 sentences2020And, significantly, the court in Atkinson was not presented with the question of the reasonableness of an inventory search when the vehicle occupant is present and not under arrest. 1 This court in Atkinson stated that it could not determine from the record whether the inventory there was conducted pursuant to and consistent with such a properly authorized program, so the court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. 298 Or at 11-12 . 232 State v. Fulmer The same day that this court decided Atkinson, it also decided State v. Perry, 298 Or 21 , 688 P2d 827 (1984), in which 2020And, significantly, the court in Atkinson was not presented with the question of the reasonableness of an inventory search when the vehicle occupant is present and not under arrest. 1 This court in Atkinson stated that it could not determine from the record whether the inventory there was conducted pursuant to and consistent with such a properly authorized program, so the court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. 298 Or at 11-12 . 232 State v. Fulmer The same day that this court decided Atkinson, it also decided State v. Perry, 298 Or 21 , 688 P2d 827 (1984), in which | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Curtis
neutral
1 sentence2020Cite as 307 Or App 297 (2020) 299 Accepting the trial court’s supported implicit and explicit factual findings and reviewing for legal error, State v. Washington, 265 Or App 532, 536 , 335 P3d 877 (2014), we conclude that the warrantless search was justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception of the Article I, sec- tion 9, warrant requirement; therefore, we do not address whether it was also justified under the inventory exception or the state’s alternative officer-safety theory. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Anfield
green
2 sentences2020See State v. Bliss, 363 Or 426, 438 , 423 P3d 53 (2018) (automobile exception); State v. Bates, 304 Or 519, 524 , 747 P2d 991 (1987) (officer safety exception); State v. Anfield, 313 Or 554, 561 , 836 P2d 1337 (1992) (search incident to arrest). 2020See State v. Bliss, 363 Or 426, 438 , 423 P3d 53 (2018) (automobile exception); State v. Bates, 304 Or 519, 524 , 747 P2d 991 (1987) (officer safety exception); State v. Anfield, 313 Or 554, 561 , 836 P2d 1337 (1992) (search incident to arrest). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Bates
green
2 sentences2020See State v. Bliss, 363 Or 426, 438 , 423 P3d 53 (2018) (automobile exception); State v. Bates, 304 Or 519, 524 , 747 P2d 991 (1987) (officer safety exception); State v. Anfield, 313 Or 554, 561 , 836 P2d 1337 (1992) (search incident to arrest). 2020See State v. Bliss, 363 Or 426, 438 , 423 P3d 53 (2018) (automobile exception); State v. Bates, 304 Or 519, 524 , 747 P2d 991 (1987) (officer safety exception); State v. Anfield, 313 Or 554, 561 , 836 P2d 1337 (1992) (search incident to arrest). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Washington
green
2 sentences2020Cite as 307 Or App 297 (2020) 299 Accepting the trial court’s supported implicit and explicit factual findings and reviewing for legal error, State v. Washington, 265 Or App 532, 536 , 335 P3d 877 (2014), we conclude that the warrantless search was justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception of the Article I, sec- tion 9, warrant requirement; therefore, we do not address whether it was also justified under the inventory exception or the state’s alternative officer-safety theory. 2020Cite as 307 Or App 297 (2020) 299 Accepting the trial court’s supported implicit and explicit factual findings and reviewing for legal error, State v. Washington, 265 Or App 532, 536 , 335 P3d 877 (2014), we conclude that the warrantless search was justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception of the Article I, sec- tion 9, warrant requirement; therefore, we do not address whether it was also justified under the inventory exception or the state’s alternative officer-safety theory. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Sparks
green
2 sentences2012On appeal, defendant argues that the backpack was unlawfully seized because this court held in State v. Sparks, 228 Or App 163, 167 , 206 P3d 1197 (2009), that the inventory exception to the warrant requirement alone cannot justify the seizure and search of portable closed containers that an occupant carries out of a vehicle on his own person. 2012On appeal, defendant argues that the backpack was unlawfully seized because this court held in State v. Sparks, 228 Or App 163, 167 , 206 P3d 1197 (2009), that the inventory exception to the warrant requirement alone cannot justify the seizure and search of portable closed containers that an occupant carries out of a vehicle on his own person. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.