Welcome to The Library
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
|[[File:Image001.jpg| '''[[Search_and_Seizure|Search and Seizure]]'''<br>[[Search_and_Seizure#Did_the_State_Infringe_Upon_a_Privacy_or_Possessory_Interest_of_Defendant.3F|Privacy Interest]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_the_defendant_stopped.3F|Stops]],[[Search_and_Seizure#Was_Defendant_Arrested.3F|Arrests]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Did_someone_Consent_to_the_search.3F|Consent]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_there_an_exception_to_the_Warrant_Requirement.3F|Warrant Exceptions]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_there_an_exception_to_the_Warrant_Requirement.3F|Suppression Exceptions]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_there_a_Search_Warrant.3F|Search Warrants]]|thumb|left]] | |[[File:Image001.jpg| '''[[Search_and_Seizure|Search and Seizure]]'''<br>[[Search_and_Seizure#Did_the_State_Infringe_Upon_a_Privacy_or_Possessory_Interest_of_Defendant.3F|Privacy Interest]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_the_defendant_stopped.3F|Stops]],[[Search_and_Seizure#Was_Defendant_Arrested.3F|Arrests]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Did_someone_Consent_to_the_search.3F|Consent]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_there_an_exception_to_the_Warrant_Requirement.3F|Warrant Exceptions]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_there_an_exception_to_the_Warrant_Requirement.3F|Suppression Exceptions]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_there_a_Search_Warrant.3F|Search Warrants]]|thumb|left]] | ||
− | |'''[[Forensic_Evidence|Forensic Science]]'''<br>[[Ballistics|Ballistics]], [[Bitemarks|Bitemarks]], [[Bloodstain_Pattern_Analysis|Bloodstains]], [[DNA|DNA]], [[Eyewitness_Identification|Eyewitness ID]], [[Fingerprints|Fingerprints]], [[Handwriting_Identification|Handwriting ID]], [[Polygraphs|Polygraphs]], [[Shaken_Baby_Syndrome|Shaken Baby]] | + | |[[File:Blood_test.jpg|thumb| '''[[Forensic_Evidence|Forensic Science]]'''<br>[[Ballistics|Ballistics]], [[Bitemarks|Bitemarks]], [[Bloodstain_Pattern_Analysis|Bloodstains]], [[DNA|DNA]], [[Eyewitness_Identification|Eyewitness ID]], [[Fingerprints|Fingerprints]], [[Handwriting_Identification|Handwriting ID]], [[Polygraphs|Polygraphs]], [[Shaken_Baby_Syndrome|Shaken Baby]]|thumb|center]] |
− | |[[File:128px-immigration.jpg | + | |
+ | |[[File:128px-immigration.jpg|'''[[Immigration|Immigration]]'''<br>[[Padilla|Understanding Padilla]], [[Aggravated_Felonies|Aggravated Felonies]], [[Inadmissibility|Inadmissibility]], [[Removability|Removability]], [[Moral_Turpitude|Moral Turpitude]], [[Naturalization|Naturalization]], [[Juvenile_Defendants|Juveniles]], [[U-Visas|U-Visas]], [[Glossary|Glossary]]thumb|center]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''[[Mental_States|Mental States]]'''<br>[[Civil_Commitments|Civil Commitments]], [[Fitness_to_Proceed|Fitness to Proceed]], [[Criminal_Negligence|Criminal Negligence]], [[Testing|Testing]]... | | '''[[Mental_States|Mental States]]'''<br>[[Civil_Commitments|Civil Commitments]], [[Fitness_to_Proceed|Fitness to Proceed]], [[Criminal_Negligence|Criminal Negligence]], [[Testing|Testing]]... |
Revision as of 15:30, August 3, 2012
A Digital Manual For Oregon Criminal DefenseThe OCDLA Library of Defense is a digital manual for criminal defense built by the collective contributions of OCDLA members. Ultimately, it will contain every law, every case, every good idea, every expert and every resource an Oregon defense attorney might need. But only if you help us out. If you visit a page on this website that is missing a case or has a typo, please edit the page. Before editing any pages for the first time, you may want to visit the how to edit page. If you have any questions or suggestions, please contact Alex Bassos at abassos@gmail.com The LibraryThe PoolThis spot will be the entry point to the OCDLA online forum. |
Recent Articles | August 15, 2024
This Week's CasesAnimal AbuseGoats are Victims Too
Each individual animal identified with a count of animal abuse will qualify as a separate victim. Here, twenty counts of second degree animal abuse could not be merged into a single conviction because each separate count “identified a different animal and charged conduct by defendant toward that animal.” State v. Nix InventoryPandora’s Closed Container of Exceptions
The Portland police inventory policy for opening closed containers designed to contain valuables (1) only applies to items in the possession of a person placed in custody, and (2) must occur prior to placing such person into a holding room or police vehicle. Here, defendant was a passenger in a stopped car, so he was stopped, but he was not "in custody" for purposes of inventory because he was only stopped as a witness. The state could not use the arrested driver's constructive possession of the bag to justify the search because the driver was already in the patrol car. The state’s arguments that defendant lost his privacy rights in his laptop bag are unpersuasive to the court:
StopsNo Stop If Officer Says Free to Leave
A stop occurred when police asked for defendant’s identification, wrote down the defendant’s information on his hand and told the defendant that he had been seen engaging in strange behavior. However, the stop ended when a police officer informed defendant that he was free to leave, even though the police officer had just told the defendant to stand in the search position with his hands behind his back. Therefore, the evidence obtained from defendant’s consent to search after that point was not the product of an illegal stop. State v. Canfield SpeedingA person may be found guilty of speeding, under ORS 811.111, if the person either drives above the statutorily designated speed limit for that type of road or drives above a posted speed limit that is different from the designated speeds. Defendant had argued, based on the language of the statute, that if the designated speed is posted then the statute wouldn’t apply. The court rejects that construction: “under that interpretation, the statutory speeds. . .could not be both posted and enforced.” State v. Patrick Juvenile DependencyHearsay Statements by Step-Child to DHS Worker Are Admissible Under Party-Opponent Exception
When DHS offers a child’s out-of-court statements in a dependency case, they are admissible as non-hearsay statements of a party-opponent under OEC 801(4)(b)(A), because the child is a party adverse to DHS. This applies to step-children too because DHS puts their step-child/parent relationship at risk. DHS v. JG |