Court of Appeals of Oregon· 4/22/1998

State v. Johnson

Citations

958 P.2d 887
153 Or. App. 535
1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 568

How courts have described this case

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

holding that a briefcase and a coin purse are “typically used to store valuables” because, “when viewed objectively, [they] are containers in which a reasonable person could expect to find valuables”
concluding that, even if trial court's denial of suppression motion was error, the error was harmless because challenged evidence had not been introduced in defendant's trial and had not led to derivative evidence
explaining why inventory issues generally should not be considered in the first instance on appeal
“[T]he briefcase and the coin purse in this case * * * are typically used to store valu- ables in the same way as a purse or a wallet.”
the fact that certain aspects of an inventory are prerequisites to its validity does not alter the need to raise and preserve challenges based on arguments that a particular inventory policy does not comply with those prerequisites
Armstrong, Landau, Haselton, and Wolheim, JJ., dissenting

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Edmonds, Armstrong

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 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.