Skip to main content

State v. Groom

Citations

  • 274 P.3d 876
  • 249 Or. App. 118
  • 2012 WL 1022909
  • 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 378

How courts have described this case

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

  • declining to address proffered “exigent circumstances” alternative basis for affirmance where, inter alia, “had the state made an ‘exigent circumstances’ argument, the facts would likely have developed differently”
  • describing the first two bases for search incident to arrest as justified by the need “to protect the arresting officer in case the suspect has a weapon within reach and to prevent the suspect from reaching and destroying evidence”
  • describing the first two bases for search incident to arrest as justified by the need ‘to pro- tect the arresting officer in case the suspect has a weapon within reach and to prevent the suspect from reaching and destroying evidence’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Schuman, Wollheim, Nakamoto

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 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.