Oregon Supreme Court· 3/5/2020

State v. Fulmer

Citations

366 Or. 224
460 P.3d 486

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that an inventory conducted without notice that an occupant “may remove readily retrievable items” violates the Oregon Constitution
holding that Article I, section 9, requires officers to notify occupants of a car to be impounded that they have the right to remove their personal possessions from the car
holding that the failure to give a defendant notice that “he or she may retrieve personal items from the vehicle causes the scope of the inventory to exceed the purposes that justify the exception”
holding that the failure to give a defendant notice that “he or she may retrieve personal items from the vehicle causes the scope of the inventory to exceed the purposes that justify the exception”
protecting a vehicle occupant’s constitutionally protected privacy and possessory interests in readily retrievable personal items within a vehicle
“[T]he contours and scope of the particular exception are circumscribed by the justification for that exception.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Balmer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

24 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.