Skip to main content

State v. Ingram

Citations

  • 831 P.2d 674
  • 313 Or. 139
  • 1992 Ore. LEXIS 37

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the legislature intended that failure to comply with ORS 133.565(2)(b) would result in suppression of evidence
  • concluding that the warrant was insufficiently particular, and therefore invalid, because \the phrase 'all vehicles *** associated with the occupants of said premises' is so standardless that the executing officer must employ discretion in deciding which vehicles to search\
  • explaining that warrants must be specific enough to remove police discretion in choosing which things to search
  • construing ORS 133.565 to be “at least as restrictive as the constitutional prohibition against general warrants”
  • construing ORS 133.565(2)(b) to be “at least as restrictive as the constitutional prohibition against general warrants”
  • warrant authorizing officers to search “all vehicles determined to be associated with the occupants of said premises” overbroad

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Graber

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

5 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.