Oregon Supreme Court· 4/26/2007

State v. Howard

Citations

157 P.3d 1189
342 Or. 635
2007 Ore. LEXIS 391

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that property law bears on Article I, section 9, privacy interests
noting that it was uncontested that the defendants had relinquished their possessory interests in garbage to the sanitation company, once the sanitation company had picked up the garbage
noting that the defendants “have not claimed that their contract with the sanitation company limited what the company could do with the garbage once the company took possession of it”
stating that whether defendants had abandoned their privacy interest in garbage they placed outside for collection is informed by, although “not necessarily coextensive with,” “the legal relationship between defendants and the sanitation company”
discussing principle; concluding that privacy interest in property was extinguished by abandonment of rights of dominion and control over property
rejecting defendants’ argument that they did not expect their garbage to be searched by police after sanitation company had picked it up

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: De Muniz, Carson, Gillette, Durham, Balmer, Kistler, Walters

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

11 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.