Oregon Supreme Court· 6/27/1996

State v. Sargent

Citations

918 P.2d 819
323 Or. 455
1996 Ore. LEXIS 58

How courts have described this case

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

holding that when no item from a search warrant was tainted by potentially trespassory conduct, there is no need to suppress the evidence
holding that police were entitled to seize evidence of a crime that was in plain view of the place they were otherwise legally entitled to be by virtue of an arrest warrant
noting that evidence is admissible under the “plain view” doctrine when intrusion is valid and it is immediately apparent that items are incriminating
stating that “the intrusion must be valid and it must be immediately apparent that the items [seized] are crime evidence”
evidence not subject to suppression under Article I, section 9, if no causal connection between evidence sought to be suppressed and unlawful police conduct
evidence not subject to suppression under Article I, section 9, if no causal connection between evidence sought to be suppressed and unlawful police conduct

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, Durham, Fadeley, Gillette, Graber, Unis, Van Hoomissen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 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.