Oregon Appellate Court, May 28, 2020

by: Rankin Johnson • June 3, 2020 • no comments

Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA

EVIDENCE - Authentication

Screenshot from phone, displaying GPS data, was authenticated by phone owner's testimony that the screenshot accurately reflected her location. Affirmed.

The court observed that the increased prevalence of digital evidence raises challenging evidentiary questions, and described the issue in this case as narrow.

State v. H.D.E. 304 Or App 375 (May 28, 2020) (DeHoog) (Umatilla County, Hill)

SENTENCING - Financial obligations'

Trial court erred by imposing financial obligations in written judgment that had not been ordered in open court. Reversed and remanded.

The court did not address defendant's complaints about probation conditions, because they could be addressed at resentencing.

State v. Frick 304 Or App 391 (May 28, 2020) (DeHoog) (Washington County, Sims)

XXX AND SEIZURE - Consent to search

Police officer's reference to treatment was not an implied promise of lenience, and therefore it did not invalidate consent to search. Affirmed.

State v. Gutierrez 304 Or App 431 (May 28, 2020) (Aoyagi) (Washington County, Sims)

XXX AND SEIZURE - Consent to search

Police officer's reference to treatment was not an implied promise of lenience, and therefore it did not invalidate consent to search. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 304 Or App XXX (May 28, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXX AND SEIZURE - Consent to search

Police officer's reference to treatment was not an implied promise of lenience, and therefore it did not invalidate consent to search. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 304 Or App XXX (May 28, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXX AND SEIZURE - Consent to search

Police officer's reference to treatment was not an implied promise of lenience, and therefore it did not invalidate consent to search. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 304 Or App XXX (May 28, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXX AND SEIZURE - Consent to search

Police officer's reference to treatment was not an implied promise of lenience, and therefore it did not invalidate consent to search. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 304 Or App XXX (May 28, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXX AND SEIZURE - Consent to search

Police officer's reference to treatment was not an implied promise of lenience, and therefore it did not invalidate consent to search. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 304 Or App XXX (May 28, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXX AND SEIZURE - Consent to search

Police officer's reference to treatment was not an implied promise of lenience, and therefore it did not invalidate consent to search. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 304 Or App XXX (May 28, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXX AND SEIZURE - Consent to search

Police officer's reference to treatment was not an implied promise of lenience, and therefore it did not invalidate consent to search. Affirmed.

State v. XXX 304 Or App XXX (May 28, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)