State v. Thompson-Seed

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that ORS 136.432 did not make evidence obtained in violation of ORS 192.565 admissible, because exclusion of such evidence is expressly required by that statutory provision
• listing examples ranging from admissibility of Breathalyzer test results to inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of wiretap statutes
• where text, context, and legislative history of statute failed to disclose legislature’s intention in regard to pre-existing statutes addressing same subject matter, court considered whether legislature intended for statute impliedly to repeal pre-existing statutes
• “The statute clearly provides that relevant, ‘otherwise admissible’ evidence may not be excluded merely because it was obtained in viola- tion of another statute. The question in this case, however, is whether the evidence was ‘otherwise admissible.’ ”
• “The statute clearly provides that relevant, ‘otherwise admissible’ evidence may not be excluded merely because it was obtained in viola- tion of another statute. The question in this case, however, is whether the evidence was ‘otherwise admissible.’ ”
• “The statute clearly provides that relevant, ‘otherwise admissible’ evidence may not be excluded merely because it was obtained in viola- tion of another statute. The question in this case, however, is whether the evidence was ‘otherwise admissible.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).