Full text
STATE OF OREGON, on Review v. JESSE JAMES MOORE, on Review

Loading…
Opinion
354 Or. 835 · Oregon Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2014
Full text
STATE OF OREGON, on Review v. JESSE JAMES MOORE, on Review
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Feb 24, 2022
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Sep 29, 2021
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jul 28, 2021
Supreme Court of South Carolina · Feb 5, 2020
Oregon Supreme Court · Mar 9, 2017
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Jan 11, 2017
Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon · Jul 27, 2016
Supreme Court of Kansas · Feb 26, 2016
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Oct 21, 2015
D. Maryland · Jul 6, 2015
Parentheticals
noting that, in some circumstances, to revisit and repudiate precedent can “subvert public confidence in the integrity of our processes—the ultimate source of any court’s authority”
noting that Machuca is consistent with federal constitutional law, which rejects a per se exigency rule for alcohol dissipation (citing Missouri v. McNeely, 569 US __, 133 S Ct 1552, 185 L Ed 2d 696 (2013))
noting that Machuca is consistent with federal constitutional law, which rejects a per se exigency rule for alcohol dissipation (citing Missouri v. McNeely, 569 US 141, 133 S Ct 1552, 185 L Ed 2d 696 (2013))
noting that Machuca is consistent with federal constitutional law, which rejects a per se exigency rule for alcohol dissipation (citing Missouri v. McNeely, 569 US ___, 133 S Ct 1552, 185 L Ed 2d 696 (2013))
“In reviewing the voluntariness of a defendant’s consent to a search, we consider whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the consent was given by an act of free will or was the result of coercion, express or implied.”
“In our view, the Court’s rejection [in McNeely] of a per se exigency rule is not inconsistent with our statement in [Machuca] that, while exigent circumstances are ‘ordinarily’ present in a case involving alcohol, that may not be true, depending on the facts of a particular case.”