evidence obtained violation in Oregon

7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 3 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Davisgreen or · 1983 · cited in 3 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1991–2002 2 sentences 2002In Tanner , the court explained: “Unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which has been predicated in recent years on deterrence of police misconduct, see, e.g., United States v. Leon, 468 US 897, 905-08 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), the exclusionary rule of section 9 is predicated on the personal right of a criminal defendant to be free from an ‘unreasonable search, or seizure,’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 231-37 , 666 P2d 802 (1983); State v. Laundy, 103 Or 443, 494 , 204 P 958 , 206 P 290 (1922) (adopting the former Fourth Amendment rationale expressed in such early Unite 2002In Tanner , the court explained: “Unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which has been predicated in recent years on deterrence of police misconduct, see, e.g., United States v. Leon, 468 US 897, 905-08 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), the exclusionary rule of section 9 is predicated on the personal right of a criminal defendant to be free from an ‘unreasonable search, or seizure,’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 231-37 , 666 P2d 802 (1983); State v. Laundy, 103 Or 443, 494 , 204 P 958 , 206 P 290 (1922) (adopting the former Fourth Amendment rationale expressed in such early Unite	2	3
State v. Portergreen or · 1991 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994See State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 236 , 666 P2d 802 (1983) (‘when the object of the statute is to define the authority of officers to seize or to search a person or property, * * * the court * * * has given effect to the statute by denying the state the use of evidence that it would not have secured if its officer had respected the rights that the statute was designed to protect’).” 312 Or at 121 . 1994See State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 236 , 666 P2d 802 (1983) ("when the object of the statute is to define the authority of officers to seize or to search a person or property, * * * the court * * * has given effect to the statute by denying the state the use of evidence that it would not have secured if its officer had respected the rights that the statute was designed to protect')." 312 Or. at 121 , 817 P.2d 1306 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Brock green or · 1982 2 sentences 2025The statutory violation in Brock, ORS 133.565(3), fell within the purview of ORS 133.673, yet the court determined that the “criminal code itself” did not require suppression of the evidence obtained in violation of ORS 133.565(3). 294 Or at 21 . 2025The statutory violation in Brock, ORS 133.565(3), fell within the purview of ORS 133.673, yet the court determined that the “criminal code itself” did not require suppression of the evidence obtained in violation of ORS 133.565(3). 294 Or at 21 .	3	2025–2025
Weeks v. United States red · 1914 2 sentences 2002In Tanner , the court explained: “Unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which has been predicated in recent years on deterrence of police misconduct, see, e.g., United States v. Leon, 468 US 897, 905-08 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), the exclusionary rule of section 9 is predicated on the personal right of a criminal defendant to be free from an ‘unreasonable search, or seizure,’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 231-37 , 666 P2d 802 (1983); State v. Laundy, 103 Or 443, 494 , 204 P 958 , 206 P 290 (1922) (adopting the former Fourth Amendment rationale expressed in such early Unite 2002In Tanner , the court explained: “Unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which has been predicated in recent years on deterrence of police misconduct, see, e.g., United States v. Leon, 468 US 897, 905-08 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), the exclusionary rule of section 9 is predicated on the personal right of a criminal defendant to be free from an ‘unreasonable search, or seizure,’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 231-37 , 666 P2d 802 (1983); State v. Laundy, 103 Or 443, 494 , 204 P 958 , 206 P 290 (1922) (adopting the former Fourth Amendment rationale expressed in such early Unite	1	2002–2002
State v. Laundy green · 1922 2 sentences 2002In Tanner , the court explained: “Unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which has been predicated in recent years on deterrence of police misconduct, see, e.g., United States v. Leon, 468 US 897, 905-08 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), the exclusionary rule of section 9 is predicated on the personal right of a criminal defendant to be free from an ‘unreasonable search, or seizure,’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 231-37 , 666 P2d 802 (1983); State v. Laundy, 103 Or 443, 494 , 204 P 958 , 206 P 290 (1922) (adopting the former Fourth Amendment rationale expressed in such early Unite 2002In Tanner , the court explained: “Unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which has been predicated in recent years on deterrence of police misconduct, see, e.g., United States v. Leon, 468 US 897, 905-08 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), the exclusionary rule of section 9 is predicated on the personal right of a criminal defendant to be free from an ‘unreasonable search, or seizure,’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 231-37 , 666 P2d 802 (1983); State v. Laundy, 103 Or 443, 494 , 204 P 958 , 206 P 290 (1922) (adopting the former Fourth Amendment rationale expressed in such early Unite	1	2002–2002
State v. Tanner green or · 1987 2 sentences 2002The policy underlying the exclusionary rule under Article I, section 9, is the vindication of the individual right that has been violated through suppression of the evidence obtained in violation of the right. 19 State v. Tanner, 304 Or 312, 315 , 745 P2d 757 (1987). 2002The policy underlying the exclusionary rule under Article I, section 9, is the vindication of the individual right that has been violated through suppression of the evidence obtained in violation of the right. 19 State v. Tanner, 304 Or 312, 315 , 745 P2d 757 (1987).	1	2002–2002
United States v. Leon green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2002In Tanner , the court explained: “Unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which has been predicated in recent years on deterrence of police misconduct, see, e.g., United States v. Leon, 468 US 897, 905-08 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), the exclusionary rule of section 9 is predicated on the personal right of a criminal defendant to be free from an ‘unreasonable search, or seizure,’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 231-37 , 666 P2d 802 (1983); State v. Laundy, 103 Or 443, 494 , 204 P 958 , 206 P 290 (1922) (adopting the former Fourth Amendment rationale expressed in such early Unite 2002In Tanner , the court explained: “Unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, which has been predicated in recent years on deterrence of police misconduct, see, e.g., United States v. Leon, 468 US 897, 905-08 , 104 S Ct 3405 , 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), the exclusionary rule of section 9 is predicated on the personal right of a criminal defendant to be free from an ‘unreasonable search, or seizure,’ State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 231-37 , 666 P2d 802 (1983); State v. Laundy, 103 Or 443, 494 , 204 P 958 , 206 P 290 (1922) (adopting the former Fourth Amendment rationale expressed in such early Unite	1	2002–2002
State v. Smith green or · 1986 2 sentences 1986However, in State v. Smith, 301 Or 681 , 725 P2d 894 (1986), decided after this case was argued, a plurality of the court abandoned Sparklin and Mains to the extent that those cases would apply the Miranda rule to effectuate the guaranties of Article I, section 12, and left the question of whether a statement is voluntary or not to a factual inquiry under the rules of the common law or statute. 1986However, in State v. Smith, 301 Or 681 , 725 P2d 894 (1986), decided after this case was argued, a plurality of the court abandoned Sparklin and Mains to the extent that those cases would apply the Miranda rule to effectuate the guaranties of Article I, section 12, and left the question of whether a statement is voluntary or not to a factual inquiry under the rules of the common law or statute.	1	1986–1986

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 810.410 (5) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.615 (4) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.525 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.545 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.555 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.565 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.575 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.673 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.693 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.703 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.432 (3) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 174.010 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 8 (1985–1997) OH 7 (2000–2025) OR 7 (1986–2025) TX 6 (2002–2015) CA 3 (1956–2017) ND 3 (2009–2015) WA 3 (1980–2020) HI 2 (2001–2001) IL 2 (1984–1991) CT 2 (1988–2019) PR 2 (1965–1972)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check