State v. Munro

How courts have described this case

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

• accepting the state’s concession that viewing a lawfully seized videotape was a “search,” but concluding that the search was authorized by a warrant
• seizure of a videotape under authority of a warrant destroyed the defendant’s privacy interests “[u]ntil such time as defendant regained lawful possession of the videotape”
• under state and federal constitutions, assuming without deciding that viewing of a videotape on a VCR constitutes a search because a videotape does not announce its contents
• under state and federal constitutions, assuming without deciding that viewing of a videotape on a VCR constitutes a search because a videotape does not announce its contents
• officer’s change of focus during later examinations of property seized pursuant to warrant does not create new invasions of privacy so long as later examinations adhere to scope of search authorized by warrant
• “Article I, section 9, protects both possessory and privacy interests in effects.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).