State v. Neidenbach

6 Citing cases

  1. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Rogers

    314 Or. 114 (Or. 1992)   Cited 23 times
    In State ex rel Juvenile Dep't of Multnomah County v. Rogers, 836 P.2d 127 (Or. 1992), the Oregon Supreme Court held that, under its state constitution, the exclusionary rule applied to probation revocation proceedings.

    Thus, no sub-constitutional issue is presented.Kissell overruled State v. Neidenbach, 73 Or. App. 476, 698 P.2d 1040, rev dismissed 300 Or. 176, 708 P.2d 355 (1985), which held that the exclusionary rule applies to probation revocation hearings. In Kissell, the Court of Appeals relied primarily on State v. Nettles, 287 Or. 131, 597 P.2d 1243 (1979), discussed infra.

  2. Memorandum Opinion

    303 Or. 369 (Or. 1987)   Cited 6 times

    Petition for review dismissed as moot. State v. Neidenbach, 300 Or. 176, 708 P.2d 355 (1985).

  3. Frey v. Board of Parole

    948 P.2d 738 (Or. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 3 times
    In Frey v. Board of Parole, 151 Or App 267, 269-70, 948 P2d 738 (1997), rev den, 326 Or 350 (1998), we held that a petitioner who challenges an order that merely continued the post-prison supervision (PPS) period previously imposed on the petitioner was not aggrieved or adversely affected by that aspect of the order.

    This court has no relief to offer petitioner. See State v. Noble, 307 Or. 506, 770 P.2d 57 (1989) (where Board of Parole overrode minimum sentence, appeal challenging propriety of minimum sentence was moot); State v. Neidenbach, 300 Or. 176, 708 P.2d 355 (1985) (where defendant was discharged from parole, reversal of Court of Appeals decision would be futile). OAR 253-011-004(3) (1989), the version of the rule in effect at the time petitioner committed his crimes in 1991, provided:

  4. State v. Chase

    851 P.2d 637 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 4 times

    The state asks us to dismiss the appeal as moot, because defendant has served the executed sentence and was discharged from parole. State v. Neidenbach, 300 Or. 176, 178, 708 P.2d 355 (1985). Defendant does not oppose the state's request for dismissal or identify any collateral consequences that might derive from the order if not vacated.

  5. State v. Iseli

    720 P.2d 1343 (Or. Ct. App. 1986)

    Restoring defendant in this case to her position "as if the state's officers had remained within the limits of their authority" requires that the state proceed without using the tainted evidence. See State v. Neidenbach, 73 Or. App. 476, 698 P.2d 1040, rev dismissed as moot 300 Or. 176 (1985). In United States v. Havens, supra, the Court permitted use of illegally seized evidence not only to impeach statements made by the defendant on direct examination but also to impeach those made in response to proper cross-examination by the prosecutor.

  6. State v. Neidenbach

    73 Or. App. 476 (Or. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 5 times

    Argued and submitted February 22, 1985 Reversed and remanded May 1, 1985 Reconsideration denied June 14, 1985 Petition for review allowed July 23, 1985 ( 299 Or. 522) See 300 Or. 176, 708 P.2d 355 (1985) Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County.