Oregon Supreme Court· 6/16/2016

State v. Newcomb

Citations

359 Or. 756
375 P.3d 434
2016 Ore. LEXIS 366

How courts have described this case

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

describing “seizure,” whether under Article I, section 9, or under Fourth Amendment, as significant interference with “possessory interest” in property
describing “seizure,” whether under Article I, section 9, or under Fourth Amendment, as significant interference with “possessory interest” in prop- erty
a person has no cognizable Article I, section 9, property or privacy right in a lawfully-seized animal
“[T]he right to privacy that Article I, section 9, protects is the freedom from scrutiny as determined by social and legal norms of behavior * * *.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
“Although the two interests—privacy and ownership/possession—are not necessarily coextensive, property law concepts of ownership and possessory rights can bear significantly on the existence or nonexistence of a protected privacy interest in the property.”
“Although the two interests — privacy and ownership/possession — are not necessarily coextensive, property law concepts of ownership and possessory rights can bear significantly on the existence or nonexistence of a protected privacy interest in the property.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Balmer, Kistler, Walters, Landau, Baldwin, Brewer, Linder

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

24 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.