Court of Appeals of Oregon· 12/31/1996

State v. Senn

Citations

930 P.2d 874
145 Or. App. 538
1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1907

How courts have described this case

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

stating that, in search and seizure law, “fact matching can be a fool’s errand”
no objective officer- safety concerns where defendant’s demeanor throughout the encounter was “entirely cooperative, nonhostile, and nonthreatening”
“[I]n many aspects of search and seizure law, fact matching can be a fool’s errand.”
when otherwise cooperative defendant got out of car at officer’s request, officer could not use fact that defendant had more freedom of movement outside the car as basis for officer-safety search
where the “[defendant's demeanor throughout the encounter with [the officer] was entirely cooperative, nonhostile, and nonthreatening,” the defendant’s furtive movements and location outside the car did not support inquiry into whether the defendant had weapons
defendant’s movement of “his upper torso towards the floor board” of a vehicle during traffic stop, in light of defendant’s “entirely cooperative, nonhostile, and nonthreatening” demeanor during encounter, did not give rise to a valid officer-safety concern

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Deits, De Muniz Hasel-Ton, Haselton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 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.