Oregon Court of Appeals 07-07-10
by: Abassos • July 6, 2010 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Civil Commitment - Danger to Others
- Consent to Search - Housemate can't Override Objection to Search
=
Civil Commitment - Danger to Others===
Physical resistance to arrest, unsubstantiated expert testimony, and hostility during a pre-commitment interview are not enough to establish that someone is a danger to others. Here: (1) Appellant's resistance to arrest was "an isolated response to 'an unusual and threatening situation'"; (2) There was no evidence on the record to support the expert testimony of a psychiatrist and an examiner; and (3) Volatility during a pre-commitment interview was not "extraordinarily persuasive." Therefore the State did not meet its burden of showing that it was "highly probable" that AMIP would pose a danger to others. Reversed. State v. A.M.R.
Consent to Search - Housemate can't override objection to search
Defendant's arrest did not negate his objection to a warrantless entry of his home, even where his co-tenant subsequently gave consent. Per the SCOTUS decision in Georgia v. Randolph, a co-tenant does not have the authority to override the present objection of a fellow occupant to a search. As today's decision points out: it does not "somehow become reasonable under the 4th amendment for police to ignore a tenant's earlier objection once that tenant is arrested." State v. Caster
