7 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2017 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. Browngreen2 sentences1992In interpreting the mobility requirement of the automobile exception, I urge that we be mindful that the principal rationale for the exception is to prevent evidence of criminal activity from being "quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); see State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268 , 721 P.2d 1357 (1986). 1992In interpreting the mobility requirement of the automobile exception, I urge that we be mindful that the principal rationale for the exception is to prevent evidence of criminal activity from being "quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); see State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268 , 721 P.2d 1357 (1986). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Getzelmangreen2 sentences2008Because the stop of [the] vehicle had not been converted to an impoundment, the mobility requirement of the automobile exception was satisfied.” 178 Or App at 601 (emphasis in original). 2002Because the stop of [the car] had not been converted to an impoundment, the mobility requirement of the automobile exception was satisfied.” Id. (emphasis omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Cromwellgreen2 sentences2002See State v. Cromwell, 109 Or App 654, 659 , 820 P2d 888 (1991) (car was sufficiently mobile to justify a warrantless search where the defendant was in his truck and the “fact that defendant had not yet turned the key was merely fortuitous”); Burr, 136 Or App at 149 (in light of rationale for the rule, a vehicle is “occupied and operable” where defendants are standing immediately outside truck parked along a public highway when police encounter it). 2002See State v. Cromwell, 109 Or. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burrgreen1 sentence2002See State v. Cromwell, 109 Or App 654, 659 , 820 P2d 888 (1991) (car was sufficiently mobile to justify a warrantless search where the defendant was in his truck and the “fact that defendant had not yet turned the key was merely fortuitous”); Burr, 136 Or App at 149 (in light of rationale for the rule, a vehicle is “occupied and operable” where defendants are standing immediately outside truck parked along a public highway when police encounter it). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carroll v. United States
green
2 sentences1992In interpreting the mobility requirement of the automobile exception, I urge that we be mindful that the principal rationale for the exception is to prevent evidence of criminal activity from being "quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); see State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268 , 721 P.2d 1357 (1986). 1992In interpreting the mobility requirement of the automobile exception, I urge that we be mindful that the principal rationale for the exception is to prevent evidence of criminal activity from being "quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); see State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268 , 721 P.2d 1357 (1986). | 2 | 1992–2017 |
State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak
green
2 sentences2015The Supreme Court’s opinion in Kurokawa-Lasciak is dispositive. 351 Or at 179 . 2013The state argues that, under Kurokawa-Lasciak , to meet the mobility requirement, it must show only that a vehicle is “mobile at the time that police encounter it in connection with a crime.” Id. at 192 . | 2 | 2013–2015 |
State v. Andersen
green
1 sentence2017Further, the court explained in Brown (and recently repeated in Andersen, 361 Or at 194 ) that the exigency that constitutionally allows police officers to search a mobile vehicle without a warrant arises because “‘the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.’” 301 Or at 275 (quoting Carroll, 267 US at 153 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |