Oregon Supreme Court· 5/9/1996

State v. Herrin

Citations

915 P.2d 953
323 Or. 188
1996 Ore. LEXIS 38

How courts have described this case

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

defendant’s exercise of control over automobile that he did not own was sufficient to support privacy interest
to establish valid inventory policy, record must demonstrate which politically accountable authority promulgated the inventory policy
trial court did not abuse its discretionary authority by declining to reopen suppression hearing at State’s request
trial court did not abuse its discretionary authority by declining to reopen suppression hearing at State's request
court will not reverse judgment of trial court on ground raised for the first time on appeal
Defendant’s right to control the vehicle searched was a “connection with the automobile” sufficient to support “a privacy interest in [the defendant] for the purpose of search and seizure law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fadeley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

16 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.