Summary
noting the `chilling effect' of recording a telephone conversation even though the defendant was told that no one would listen to the recording
Summary of this case from State v. MendozaOpinion
1997.
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Petitions for Review
Oregon Supreme Court
Jan 1, 1997
326 Or. 68 (Or. 1997)
Summaries of
Petitions for Review
Oregon Supreme Court
Jan 1, 1997
326 Or. 68 (Or. 1997)
noting the `chilling effect' of recording a telephone conversation even though the defendant was told that no one would listen to the recording
Summary of this case from State v. Mendozanoting the "chilling effect" of recording a telephone conversation even though the defendant was told that no one would listen to the recording
Summary of this case from State v. Matviyenkodeclining to address on appeal whether summary judgment was proper on an alternative ground when trial court expressly refrained from considering the alternative ground
Summary of this case from Central Oregon Independent Health Services, Inc. v. State ex rel. Department of Human Servicesnoting that under Article I, section 9, "the third party must have actual authority to consent" but that, under the Fourth Amendment, as explained in Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148, "consent of a third party may be valid if it is based on `apparent authority'"
Summary of this case from State v. HayesCase details for
Petitions for Review
Case Details
Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jan 1, 1997
Citations
326 Or. 68 (Or. 1997)
Citing Cases
State v. Rohrs
Evidence of the refusal was therefore inadmissible. In State v. Nielsen, 147 Or. App. 294, 936 P.2d 374, rev…
State v. KruchekNor is it a case in which an otherwise concealing container is labeled in a way that reveals its illegal…