Oregon Supreme Court· 3/9/2000

State v. Tucker

Citations

997 P.2d 182
330 Or. 85
2000 Ore. LEXIS 150

How courts have described this case

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

noting that “Article I, section 9, prohibits only state action that infringes on a citizen’s constitutional rights”
rejecting the argument that “a passenger in an auto- mobile has no protected privacy interest or property interest in the automobile or its contents”
state failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that defendant lacked protected interest in camera case left in automobile in which defendant had been passenger
under ORS 133.693(4), the state bears the burden of proving that a defendant did not have a protected interest in place or items searched
private tow truck operator acting at request of officer must act within bounds of Oregon Constitution
“[I]n the context of a warrantless search, a defendant is not required to assert a protected property or privacy interest on which the state intruded.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Durham, Leeson, Riggs

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

6 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.