Oregon Supreme Court· 11/17/1987

State v. Tanner

Citations

745 P.2d 757
304 Or. 312
1987 Ore. LEXIS 1972

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that the defendant retained a privacy interest in items that he entrusted to friends as security for a loan so that, when an unlawful search of the friends’ home uncovered the defendant’s property, his privacy interests were violated
“[T]he exclusionary rule of [Article I,] section 9 is predicated on the personal right of a criminal defendant to be free from an ‘unreasonable search, or seizure[.]’ ”
individuals have “a constitutional right to exclude evidence obtained in violation of Article I, section 9”
in general, where the possibility remains that a person will reclaim an effect, the person’s entrustment of the effect to another does not abrogate the person’s privacy interest in it
a guest’s privacy interest would not be as extensive as a resident’s privacy interest
defendant retained a protected privacy interest in property that he had given to friends as collateral “[s]o long as there remained a possibility that [he] would reclaim” the property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lent, Campbell, Gillette, Peterson, Jones

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

91 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named State v. Tanner

87 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

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.