Oregon Supreme Ct - June 29, 2017
by: Sara Werboff • June 30, 2017 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> * </summary> [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064263.pdf State v. Winn], 361 Or 636 (2017) (Brewer, J.)") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | * | + | *Search and Seizure – Remanding to Determine as Factual Matter Scope of Defendant’s Consent |
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| + | '''Search and Seizure – Remanding to Determine as Factual Matter Scope of Defendant’s Consent''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this companion case to State v. Blair, involving whether a defendant’s consent to a search includes searches of closed containers, the court similarly reverses and remands for the trial court to determine, as a factual matter, whether defendant consented to a search of her purse. Defendant’s purse was scanned twice at a courthouse security checkpoint. The security officer notices a spoon and a compact and believed defendant may have drugs. Without communicating that belief to defendant, the officer asked if she could search the purse and defendant said yes. The officer opened the compact and found drugs. The court explains that under the new rule announced in Blair, there were competing factual inferences as to whether defendant consented to a search of the closed containers in her purse, and therefore, remands for the trial court to make that determination. | ||
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064263.pdf State v. Winn], 361 Or 636 (2017) (Brewer, J.) | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064263.pdf State v. Winn], 361 Or 636 (2017) (Brewer, J.) | ||
| + | {{wl-publish: 2017-06-30 11:32:37 -0700 | Sara.f.werboff@opds.state.or.us:Sara Werboff }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:32, July 1, 2017
Search and Seizure – Remanding to Determine as Factual Matter Scope of Defendant’s Consent
In this companion case to State v. Blair, involving whether a defendant’s consent to a search includes searches of closed containers, the court similarly reverses and remands for the trial court to determine, as a factual matter, whether defendant consented to a search of her purse. Defendant’s purse was scanned twice at a courthouse security checkpoint. The security officer notices a spoon and a compact and believed defendant may have drugs. Without communicating that belief to defendant, the officer asked if she could search the purse and defendant said yes. The officer opened the compact and found drugs. The court explains that under the new rule announced in Blair, there were competing factual inferences as to whether defendant consented to a search of the closed containers in her purse, and therefore, remands for the trial court to make that determination.
State v. Winn, 361 Or 636 (2017) (Brewer, J.)
