A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Court of Appeals 01-06-10

From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Abassos • January 5, 2010 • no comments

(Importing text file)
 

Latest revision as of 17:21, December 21, 2012

Read the full article for details about the following new cases:

  • Probable Cause - Drug Dog
  • Failure to Appear - 1st vs 2nd degree
  • Upward Departure - Vulnerable Victim
  • Stalking Protective Order - Free Speech
  • Interfering with Public Transportation - Shared Public Use Platforms


Contents

Probable Cause - Drug Dog [edit]

A drug dog's positive sniff amounts to probable cause that drugs are present, at least when combined with an anonymous tip that the defendant was a drug dealer. This is true despite uncontroverted evidence that drug dogs only find drugs 2/3rds of the time and that they can hit on residual amounts. 2/3rds is still more likely than not. State v. Foster

Failure to Appear - 1st vs 2nd degree [edit]

You can't be convicted of 1st degree failure to appear when the only evidence is that you were released to appear on misdemeanor charges. Moreover, 2nd degree FTA is not a lesser included of 1st degree FTA. Thus, it's just a plain old reversal without remand. State v. Arney

Upward Departure - Vulnerable Victim [edit]

The trial court erred in imposing a vulnerable victim upward departure in a coercion case where the victim had been raped a year before. There was no evidence of increased vulnerability, harm or threat of harm for this victim. State v. Enemesio

Stalking Protective Order - Free Speech [edit]

While communicative, non-threatening contacts cannot themselves provide a basis for a stalking protective order, they can provide context for non-communicative contacts to support such an order. Here, the protected person was reasonably afraid for her safety taking all the contacts together. Buskirk v. Ryan

Interfering with Public Transportation [edit]

A Max platform which has a shared public use is not a "transit dedicated light rail platform." Thus, defendant's entry onto the platform was not Interfering with Public Transportation. We're talkin about you Hillsboro Transit Center. State v. Begay