Summary
holding that the defendant consented to the search of his suitcase because he did not withdraw his consent, even when it became apparent the officer was going to open the suitcase
Summary of this case from State v. HelowOpinion
1992.
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Petitions for Review
Oregon Supreme Court
Jan 1, 1992
314 Or. 176 (Or. 1992)
Summaries of
Petitions for Review
Oregon Supreme Court
Jan 1, 1992
314 Or. 176 (Or. 1992)
holding that the defendant consented to the search of his suitcase because he did not withdraw his consent, even when it became apparent the officer was going to open the suitcase
Summary of this case from State v. Helowconcluding that the scope of defendant's consent extended to a suitcase in the trunk of the car where defendant gave consent in response to the officer's request to search defendant's car for “weapons, narcotics or large sums of money”
Summary of this case from State v. Winnsetting out methodology for determining similarity of prior convictions
Summary of this case from State v. Soto-Nunezexplaining test for determining similarity of offenses for purposes of departure sentences
Summary of this case from State v. Wiseexplaining test for similarity of convictions
Summary of this case from State v. WilliamsCase details for
Petitions for Review
Case Details
Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jan 1, 1992
Citations
314 Or. 176 (Or. 1992)
Citing Cases
Rugemer v. Rhea
The issue is how to determine whether "sufficient proof" has been offered. Defendant argues that this is a…
State v. BonhamPorter does limit what may occur during the course of a traffic stop, but it does not hold that, once a…