State v. Lippert

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Lippert

    317 Or. 397 (Or. 1993)   Cited 11 times
    In State v. Lippert, 317 Or. 397, 856 P.2d 634 (1993), the court relied on Perry in concluding that the principles articulated there did not apply where the intoxicated defendant challenged evidence found in his pocket, but reaffirmed that "[t]he result would be different if the item searched were not a pocket but instead were something that the person to be detoxified was not going to take into the secure facility," such as a suitcase, as in Perry. Lippert, 317 Or. at 405 n. 6, 856 P.2d 634.

    On review from the Court of Appeals. Appeal from Harney County Circuit Court, F.J. Yraguen, Judge. 112 Or. App. 429, 829 P.2d 1020 (1992). Jas. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review.

  2. State v. Bunn

    116 Or. App. 6 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 3 times

    The court concluded that, because it was reasonable to pat down defendant, any evidence discovered as a result was admissible in the criminal trial. The most recent decision involving this recurring problem is State v. Lippert, 112 Or. App. 429, 829 P.2d 1020 (1992), in which we reviewed the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court. In Lippert, as in all of the cases, the evidence was held to be inadmissible.

  3. State v. Bailey

    116 Or. App. 14 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    The trial court denied the motion, holding that the search was a proper part of booking for a "detox" hold. Assuming that the inventory was permissible, we held in State v. Lippert, 112 Or. App. 429, 829 P.2d 1020 (1992), that evidence of crime seized during an inventory is not admissible. We have followed Lippert in State v. Bunn, 116 Or. App. 6, 840 P.2d 106 (1992).

  4. State v. Bunn

    865 P.2d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 2 times

    ROSSMAN, P.J. The state seeks reconsideration of our opinion, 116 Or. App. 6, 840 P.2d 106 (1992), which reversed defendant's conviction on the basis of our decision in State v. Lippert, 112 Or. App. 429, 829 P.2d 1020 (1992). In that version of Lippert, we held that a cocaine paperfold is inadmissible if obtained without a warrant during a routine search of an individual taken into protective custody for detoxification.