Oregon Supreme Court, March 5, 2020
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
by: Rankin Johnson • March 12, 2020 • no comments
(Created page with " <summary hidden> SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Inventories </summary> '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' '''SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Inventories''' Failing to invite defendant...") |
m |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Failing to invite defendant to remove personal items from impounded vehicle rendered subsequent inventory search unlawful. Trial court and Court of Appeals reversed. | Failing to invite defendant to remove personal items from impounded vehicle rendered subsequent inventory search unlawful. Trial court and Court of Appeals reversed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Supreme Court considered the purpose of an inventory search in adding this new requirement for such searches. | ||
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/S066654 State v. Fulmer] 366 Or 224 (March 5, 2020) (Balmer) (Washington County, Garcia) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/S066654 State v. Fulmer] 366 Or 224 (March 5, 2020) (Balmer) (Washington County, Garcia) | ||
{{wl-publish: 2020-03-12 20:18:33 -0700 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} | {{wl-publish: 2020-03-12 20:18:33 -0700 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:39, March 24, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Inventories
Failing to invite defendant to remove personal items from impounded vehicle rendered subsequent inventory search unlawful. Trial court and Court of Appeals reversed.
The Supreme Court considered the purpose of an inventory search in adding this new requirement for such searches.
State v. Fulmer 366 Or 224 (March 5, 2020) (Balmer) (Washington County, Garcia)
