Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2/17/1999

State v. Fuller

Citations

976 P.2d 1137
158 Or. App. 501
1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 197

How courts have described this case

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

holding that consent, for purposes of Article I, section 9, must be given by a “person with the actual authority to do so”
concluding that there was “no evidence that defendant knew that [defendant’s girlfriend] was getting into his nightstand, much less that he explicitly authorized or even implicitly acquiesced in that conduct” (emphasis added)
finding that occasional access to the nightstand without the defendant’s knowledge is insufficient to show actual authority
third party lacked actual authority to consent to the search of the defendant's nightstand, despite her ability to open and occasionally access the nightstand's unlocked drawer, in the absence of any evidence of permission or acquiescence by the defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: De Muniz, Haselton, Wollheim

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

18 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.