Oregon Supreme Court· 12/12/2013

State v. Moore

Citations

354 Or. 493
318 P.3d 1133
2013 WL 6508827
2013 Ore. LEXIS 997

How courts have described this case

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

assuming without deciding that, “at least under some circumstances, use of evidence of defendant’s refusal [to consent to a BAC test] against him would violate his Article I, section 9, right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures”
“[A] police officer’s accurate statement of the potential lawful adverse consequences resulting from a refusal ordinarily cannot be deemed to unlawfully coerce a defendant’s consent to a search or seizure.”
“[A]ccurately advising a defendant of a lawful penalty that could be imposed may well play a role in the defen dant’s decision to engage' in the particular behavior, but that does not-mean’ that the defendant’s decision was ‘involuntary.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Balmer, Kistler, Walters

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

36 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.