Oregon Appellate Court 04-05-2012
by: Abassos • April 4, 2012 • no comments
Contents |
Search and Seizure - Privacy - Banking Privacy Laws
Evidence was properly suppressed where police violated the banking privacy laws (ORS 192.583 to 192.687). Based on bank records found during a valid search of defendant's home, the police sent the bank a notice directing them to freeze defendant's accounts. When defendant tried to access his safety deposit box, the bank employee called the police, told them about the box and asked if it was included within the notice. The investigating officer instructed the bank to seize the box and was given detailed information about the location and number of the box. The banking privacy laws allow a bank to disclose information to the police if it suspects the assets are involved in criminal activity. But here, the bank had no such suspicion and was acting only pursuant to an order from the police. State v Bobbit
Sentencing - RePO Sentences do not shift to I
Consecutive sentences under ORS 137.717, the repeat property offender law, do not shift to I because they are statutorily mandated sentences. Here, defendant was convicted of burglary and criminal mischief from the same incident. So if they were presumptive grid block sentences, the shift to I rule would have applied. State v Hicks
Plain Error - Compensatory Fines
Defendant was not entitled to plain error review of a $200.00 compensatory fine imposed in the absence of pecuniary loss because he could have made a tactical choice not to object in order to avoid other non-compensatory fines (which weren't imposed in this case). State v Debuiser
Identity Theft - Intent to Defraud
Intent to defraud can be inferred when the defendant chooses to steal items that can be used for identity theft. Here, defendant rummaged through an office and stole 5 credit cards, 2 checks and a personal digital assistant. Thus, the jury was allowed to infer that defendant intended to use the things he stole. State v Elliot
Per Curiams
It's improper to impose separate concurrent sentences on merged convictions (here, 3 burglary convictions from 1 incident). State v Wilcox
15 months delay attributable to the state on misdemeanor charges is presumptively unreasonable. Since the state had no reasonable explanation, it's concession is appropriate. State v O'Dell
The trial court did not plainly err in imposing restitution where there was some evidence of the nature and amount of damages. State v West
A denial of a motion for corrected judgment is not appealable because it leaves the conviction and sentence untouched. State v Sager
