2014 Oregon Criminal Law Quiz
by: Ryan • January 18, 2014 • no comments
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary>Can we entertain, educate and anticipate in one blog post? Here we go.</summary> | <summary>Can we entertain, educate and anticipate in one blog post? Here we go.</summary> | ||
| − | (1) SCOTUS will have two opinions on searching cell phones incident to arrest by July. The opinions will roughly hold: | + | '''(1) SCOTUS will have two opinions on searching cell phones incident to arrest by July. The opinions will roughly hold:''' |
(A) If you can search the defendant's pockets when he's arrested, you can go through the entire contents of his cell phone without a warrant. | (A) If you can search the defendant's pockets when he's arrested, you can go through the entire contents of his cell phone without a warrant. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
(C) Nope, can't look in it at all, no more than you could turn on and search a lap top. You need a warrant! | (C) Nope, can't look in it at all, no more than you could turn on and search a lap top. You need a warrant! | ||
| − | (2) ''State v. Ziska'' will likely be decided this year. Consequently . . . . | + | '''(2) ''State v. Ziska'' will likely be decided this year. Consequently . . . .''' |
(A) Unlawful Use of a Weapon will be limited to use or attempted use of that weapon, not the threatened use of that weapon. | (A) Unlawful Use of a Weapon will be limited to use or attempted use of that weapon, not the threatened use of that weapon. | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
(B) The Court of Appeals and the trial court will be affirmed. | (B) The Court of Appeals and the trial court will be affirmed. | ||
| − | (3) The Court of Appeals will look at merger of drug counts anew, and they will hold: | + | '''(3) The Court of Appeals will look at merger of drug counts anew, and they will hold:''' |
(A) Manufacturing and Possession will merge under ''State v. Blake.'' | (A) Manufacturing and Possession will merge under ''State v. Blake.'' | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
(C) DCS (substantial quantity) and PCS will merge under the analysis of ''St v Flores.'' | (C) DCS (substantial quantity) and PCS will merge under the analysis of ''St v Flores.'' | ||
| − | (4) We will finally get an opinion that: | + | '''(4) We will finally get an opinion that: |
| − | + | ''' | |
(A) Affirms that a finding of separate criminal episodes can be a ''Blakely'' factor (''i.e.'', must be proven to a jury absent a waiver or admission) | (A) Affirms that a finding of separate criminal episodes can be a ''Blakely'' factor (''i.e.'', must be proven to a jury absent a waiver or admission) | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
(C) The state must prove that the person whose identity is stolen is a real person and alive before the state can accrue the sentencing benefits from declaring them a separate victim. | (C) The state must prove that the person whose identity is stolen is a real person and alive before the state can accrue the sentencing benefits from declaring them a separate victim. | ||
| − | (5) The Oregon Supreme Court will surprise everyone by granting review to: | + | '''(5) The Oregon Supreme Court will surprise everyone by granting review to:''' |
(A) A religious-freedom case. | (A) A religious-freedom case. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:39, January 19, 2014
Can we entertain, educate and anticipate in one blog post? Here we go.
(1) SCOTUS will have two opinions on searching cell phones incident to arrest by July. The opinions will roughly hold:
(A) If you can search the defendant's pockets when he's arrested, you can go through the entire contents of his cell phone without a warrant.
(B) You can only look in the cell phone for something very specific to the crime he's arrested for, i.e., the phone number of the person with whom he just arranged a drug deal.
(C) Nope, can't look in it at all, no more than you could turn on and search a lap top. You need a warrant!
(2) State v. Ziska will likely be decided this year. Consequently . . . .
(A) Unlawful Use of a Weapon will be limited to use or attempted use of that weapon, not the threatened use of that weapon.
(B) The Court of Appeals and the trial court will be affirmed.
(3) The Court of Appeals will look at merger of drug counts anew, and they will hold:
(A) Manufacturing and Possession will merge under State v. Blake.
(B) DCS and PCS will merge, because contrary to St v Sergent, solicitation by itself does not equal an attempted delivery.
(C) DCS (substantial quantity) and PCS will merge under the analysis of St v Flores.
(4) We will finally get an opinion that: (A) Affirms that a finding of separate criminal episodes can be a Blakely factor (i.e., must be proven to a jury absent a waiver or admission)
(B) The state must prove that the children depicted in child porn were alive when the pictures were viewed, before the court can conclude the children are victims.
(C) The state must prove that the person whose identity is stolen is a real person and alive before the state can accrue the sentencing benefits from declaring them a separate victim.
(5) The Oregon Supreme Court will surprise everyone by granting review to:
(A) A religious-freedom case.
(B) A child porn case.
(C) A new Blakely-type case.
Surprise! Nothing about the improper joinder demurrer. I don't expect a COA opinion on that topic until 2015.
