Oregon Supreme Court· 12/15/2005

State v. Munro

Citations

124 P.3d 1221
339 Or. 545
2005 Ore. LEXIS 725

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).

Judges: De Muniz

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 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.