Court of Appeals of Oregon· 5/12/1993

State v. Johnson

Citations

851 P.2d 1160
120 Or. App. 151
1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 694

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that a detective had “reasonable suspicion that [the defendant] was either in possession of the drug, or had recently been in a place where it was manufactured” after detecting the drug’s “distinct aroma”
concluding that immediately handcuffing the defendant was disproportionate to the threat he posed to officers by being present at the arrest scene with his hand concealed when police knew he had previously been arrested on weapons charges
explaining that aroma of methamphetamine emanating from the defendant was sufficient to arouse a reasonable suspicion that he was either in possession of the drug or had recently been in a place where it was manufactured
explaining that “Article I, section 9, does not have a ‘good faith’ exception”
stating that, in the criminal context, “when an officer fails to follow the procedure outlined in ORS 131.625, and there is no reason to believe that attempting to do so would be futile, then the use of handcuffs exceeds the restraint permitted by the statute”
“Handcuffing [the defendant] constituted an arrest that was not supported by probable cause.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Muniz, Rossman, Edmonds, De Muniz

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.