Oregon Supreme Court· 12/31/2015

State v. Bonilla

Citations

358 Or. 475
366 P.3d 331
2015 Ore. LEXIS 955

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that state failed to adduce evidence that mother had actual authority to consent to police search of closed wooden box that was within room she shared with the defendant, her daughter
holding that that the concept of “apparent authority” is inconsistent with the rights guaranteed under Article I, section 9, which requires consent to be “given by (or lawfully on behalf of) the person who holds the protected privacy interest”
noting that “consent relinquishes a person’s privacy interest in property so that there is no unlawful intrusion under Article I, section 9”
relying on Carsey in explaining the scope of the third-party consent doctrine under Article I, section 9
subject to certain specifically established and limited exceptions, war-rantless searches are deemed to be per se unreasonable
“[A] co-inhabitant with common authority over property, based on joint access or control, generally has authority to give consent to search the property.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brewer, Landau, Kistler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

49 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.