Oregon Supreme Court· 8/17/2006

State v. Henderson

Citations

142 P.3d 58
341 Or. 219
2006 Ore. LEXIS 763

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that, under ORS 136.432, unless statutory violation has constitutional dimensions, violation of ORS 133.575 did not warrant suppression
noting that two stolen diamond rings were “nonperishable items of high value” in rejecting staleness challenge
noting that two stolen diamond rings were \nonperishable items of high value\ in rejecting staleness challenge
noting that a magistrate can “rely on his [or her] own common sense and draw reasonable inferences” about where the defen- dant would probably keep the evidence
observing that diamond rings are “nonperishable items of high value that would be easy to conceal, that retain their value, and that some people might find attractive to keep for personal use”
“While adhering to the prob- able cause requirement, we resolve doubtful or marginal cases in favor of the preference for warrants.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Balmer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

7 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.