Oregon Appellate Ct. - Nov. 5, 2014
by: Frangieringer and Abassos • November 5, 2014 • no comments
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Cost of security measures that resulted “but for” defendant’s conduct is recoverable as restitution. Here, complainant changed her phone number, locks, rented a temporary residence, and obtained police reports from a different city in response to defendant’s stalking. Because these actions would not have happened, but for defendant’s behavior, the costs of complainant’s security measures could be recovered as restitution. | Cost of security measures that resulted “but for” defendant’s conduct is recoverable as restitution. Here, complainant changed her phone number, locks, rented a temporary residence, and obtained police reports from a different city in response to defendant’s stalking. Because these actions would not have happened, but for defendant’s behavior, the costs of complainant’s security measures could be recovered as restitution. | ||
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153140.pdf State v. Pumphrey], 266 Or App ___ (2014). | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153140.pdf State v. Pumphrey], 266 Or App ___ (2014). | ||
| − | {{wl-publish: 2014-11- | + | {{wl-publish: 2014-11-5 16:47:13 -0800 | Frangieringer:Francis Gieringer }} |
| + | {{wl-publish: 2014-11-5 16:47:13 -0800 | Abassos }} | ||
Latest revision as of 17:47, November 11, 2014
Inventory Searches – Policy Allowing Searches of Containers That May Hold Food Or Alcohol Are Overbroad
Inventory policies requiring police to search containers that may hold food items or alcohol are overbroad. Here, defendant’s backpack was inventoried under the Lane County Sheriff’s Office’s policy of inventorying anything that could potentially include valuables, firearms, explosives, food, or alcohol. Evidence of identity theft was recovered. Because such a policy is overbroad when the purpose is to protect valuables or protect against dangerous items, searching a container for food and alcohol would open up almost all containers to inventory searches. Because the search was overbroad, the evidence recovered from the back pack should have been suppressed. State v. Hite, 266 Or App ___ (2014).
Demeanor Testimony – COA Is Really Serious, Witnesses Cannot Testify About Credibility
Cross-examining witness on defendant’s demeanor does not permit prosecutor to question witness about defendant’s credibility. Here, during cross, defense counsel questioned officer on defendant’s “nonchalant attitude” during an interrogation. Because defendant’s carriage in an interrogation goes to his demeanor, and not his credibility, permitting an officer to testify that he thought defendant was dishonest based on defendant’s nonchalant attitude, was prejudicial and reversible error. State v. Marquez-Vela, 266 Or App ___ (2014).
Restitution – Complainant’s Security Measures Against Defendant Are Recoverable
Cost of security measures that resulted “but for” defendant’s conduct is recoverable as restitution. Here, complainant changed her phone number, locks, rented a temporary residence, and obtained police reports from a different city in response to defendant’s stalking. Because these actions would not have happened, but for defendant’s behavior, the costs of complainant’s security measures could be recovered as restitution. State v. Pumphrey, 266 Or App ___ (2014).
