Skip to main content

State v. Snow

Citations

  • 94 P.3d 872
  • 337 Or. 219
  • 2004 Ore. LEXIS 485

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding exigency exists when situation requires police to act swiftly to prevent destruction of evidence
  • holding exigency exists when situation requires police to act swiftly to prevent destruction of evidence
  • holding exigency exists when situation requires police to act swiftly to prevent destruction of evidence
  • stating that whether facts establish probable cause is a question of law
  • stating that the exigent circumstances exception “requires both probable cause and an exigency”
  • explaining that an exigent circumstance includes ‘“a situation that requires police to act swiftly *** to forestall *** the destruction of evidence’” (quoting State v. Stevens, 311 Or 119, 126, 806 P2d 92 (1991))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kistler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

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.