Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:21:54Z

Importing text file

New page

''Read the full article for details about the following new cases:''
* Probable Cause - Drug Dog
* Failure to Appear - 1st vs 2nd degree
* Upward Departure - Vulnerable Victim
* Stalking Protective Order - Free Speech
* Interfering with Public Transportation - Shared Public Use Platforms

===Probable Cause - Drug Dog===

A drug dog's positive sniff amounts to probable cause that drugs are present, at least when combined with an anonymous tip that the defendant was a drug dealer. This is true despite uncontroverted evidence that drug dogs only find drugs 2/3rds of the time and that they can hit on residual amounts. 2/3rds is still more likely than not.
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A135857.htm State v. Foster]

===Failure to Appear - 1st vs 2nd degree===

You can't be convicted of 1st degree failure to appear when the only evidence is that you were released to appear on misdemeanor charges. Moreover, 2nd degree FTA is not a lesser included of 1st degree FTA. Thus, it's just a plain old reversal without remand.
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A136273.htm State v. Arney]

===Upward Departure - Vulnerable Victim===

The trial court erred in imposing a vulnerable victim upward departure in a coercion case where the victim had been raped a year before. There was no evidence of increased vulnerability, harm or threat of harm for this victim.
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A136698.htm State v. Enemesio]

===Stalking Protective Order - Free Speech===

While communicative, non-threatening contacts cannot themselves provide a basis for a stalking protective order, they can provide context for non-communicative contacts to support such an order. Here, the protected person was reasonably afraid for her safety taking all the contacts together.
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A136589.htm Buskirk v. Ryan]

===Interfering with Public Transportation===

A Max platform which has a shared public use is not a "transit dedicated light rail platform." Thus, defendant's entry onto the platform was not Interfering with Public Transportation. We're talkin about you Hillsboro Transit Center.
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A139130.htm State v. Begay]

{{wl-publish: 2010-01-05 21:00:00 -0800 | abassos }}

Blog:Case Reviews/Oregon Court of Appeals 01-06-10 - Revision history

Maintenance script: Importing text file