Oregon Supreme Court· 6/15/2017

State v. Blair

Citations

361 Or. 527
396 P.3d 908
2017 Ore. LEXIS 417

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

remanding case to the trial court to make factual findings in the first instance under the correct legal standard
rejecting rule that consent to search an item presumptively extends to all things contained in item if defendant places no restrictions on search
“[C]ompeting inferences could be drawn from both the officer’s generalized request and defendant’s unqualified response with respect to what defendant actually under- stood to be the scope of the officer’s request and what defen- dant intended by his responsive manifestation of consent.”
vacating and remand- ing where the record was not clear on a dispositive factual issue and we could not presume the court found that fact consistently with its ultimate conclusion because it was not apparent that the trial court understood the required fac- tual inquiry
dis- cussing “actual consent” as the “touchstone of the consent exception under Article I, section 9”
“[O]ur decisions under Article I, section 9, indicate that circumstances showing the defen- dant’s actual understanding and intent are relevant to the voluntariness analysis.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Balmer, Kistler, Walters, Landau, Brewer, Nakamoto, Flynn

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.