Court of Appeals of Oregon· 9/17/2014

State v. Washington

Citations

265 Or. App. 532
335 P.3d 877
2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1293

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 holding in State v. Brody, 69 Or App 469, 473, 686 P2d 451 (1984), did not “surviv[e] the Supreme Court’s decision” in State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 729 P2d 524 (1986)
explaining the scope and intensity of a search incident to arrest
“[O]fficers may open a closed con- tainer in conducting a search incident to arrest if evidence of the crime of arrest reasonably could be concealed in that container.”
“Article I, section 9, authorizes a search incident to arrest for three purposes: (1) to protect the officer’s safety; (2) to prevent the destruction of evidence; and (3) to discover evidence of the crime of arrest.”
“A search is rea- sonable in scope and intensity if it is sufficiently close in space to the arrest; that is, if it is confined to the area that was in the immediate control of the suspect at the time of the arrest[.]” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Duncan, Lagesen, Wollheim

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

19 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.