Oregon Supreme Ct - May 30, 2014
by: Abassos and Lisa Fitzgerald • May 30, 2014 • no comments
An Objection to an Appellate Remedy Must Be Made to the Appellate Court
Where an appellate court orders a corrected judgement, the defendant's argument that he should be resentenced is properly made to the appellate court, not to the trial court. Here, the Supreme Court remanded for a corrected judgement and defendant argued to the trial court that he should be resentenced on all the non-capital counts. However, the appellate judgement had become final by that point. Thus, the argument was lost. State v. Bowen, 355 Or 469(2014)
School Safety Exception Permits a Warrantless Search of Backpack in Official’s Possession
The school-safety exception to the warrant requirement permits a school official to conduct a warrantless search of a suspect’s backpack after the official had seized the backpack from the suspect. Under the school safety exception, if a school official reasonably suspects that an individual on school property poses an immediate safety threat to others at the school, then the school official may take reasonable steps in response, including conducting a limited, warrantless search. Here, a student informed a school official that another student had told her the night before that he was going to bring a gun to school to shoot her and other students. The Court held that, given the unique features of the school setting, the principal’s search of the suspect’s backpack after it had been seized was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, because there was reasonable suspicion to conduct the search, and the search was no more intrusive than it needed to be. Affirmed. State v. A. J. C., 355 Or 522 ( 2014).
OEC 503(4)(c) Exception is Limited to Information Necessary for a Lawyer’s Defense During Post-Conviction Proceedings
The breach of duty exception to lawyer-client privilege, OEC 503(4)(c ) is a limited exception that only permits disclosure of information necessary to the lawyer’s post-conviction defense. The exception never includes disclosure of confidential information to third parties with no connection to the preparation of a defense, or disclosures after the post-conviction case is over. The court has discretion to determine which information may be disclosed to third parties for the purposes of preparing a defense and what procedures are appropriate; that determination will be specific to the circumstance of each case. Here, in both cases, the court requires the post-conviction court to issue the protective orders requested by the defense attorney, with the terms left to the discretion of the court. Longo v. Premo, 355 Or 525 (May 2014); (S060980) Brumwell v. Premo, 355 Or 543 (May 2014).
