105 Or. App. 102 - State v. MacDonald’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “ignores the purpose of the exclusionary rule of section 9, which is to recognize the personal right of every individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. See e.g., State v. Tanner, 304 Or 312, 315 , 745 P.2d 757 (1987); State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 231 , 666 P.2d 802 (1983). When a defendant challenges the lawfulness of a search or seizure, the issue is not whether he has `standing' to make a legal challenge, rather, it is whether there has been a significant interference with his possessory or ownership interests in the property. See State v. Tanner, supra, 304 Or at 315 [ 745 P.2d 757 ]. Although it is incongruous to require a defendant to take a position at a pretrial hearing contrary to his position at trial, the result is compelled by section 9, which applies regardless of the nature of the offense. Therefore, we hold that, notwithstanding the possessory aspect of the offense, `[i]t is the defendant's burden to establish a protected right in the particular item of property before he can challenge the alleged violation.' State v. Nelson, 76 OrApp 67, 71, 708 P2d 1153 (1985). Defendant failed to meet that burden when he declined to claim any protected interest in the bindle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 137 Or. App. 228 - State v. Morton

2. “In Kosta , the police had intercepted a package on a Federal Express delivery truck. The defendant had not caused the package to be transported, nor was he the addressee, intended recipient or an individual with an identifiable interest in the package at the time of its seizure. The package was subjected to a sniff by a trained police dog. Police officers opened it and identified the contents as cocaine, after which it was resealed and delivered to the addressee. The defendant picked up the package, after which he was charged with and convicted of possession of a controlled substance. The court held that the defendant's Article I, section 9, rights were not violated by the police conduct of stopping the delivery truck and exposing the package to the police dog, because he had failed to articulate any protected interest in the package at the time of the intrusion. 304 Or at 554 [ 748 P.2d 72 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 137 Or. App. 228 - State v. Morton

3. “it is incongruous to require a defendant to take a position at a pretrial hearing contrary to his position at trial,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 137 Or. App. 228 - State v. Morton