State v. Amaya

Decision Date18 June 2002
Docket NumberNo. S49344.,S49344.
Citation49 P.3d 797,334 Or. 288
PartiesState v. Amaya.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Petition for review is allowed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Hall
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • July 31, 2002
    ... ...         We inquire initially whether Deese's actions were authorized by any statute. State v. Amaya, 176 Or.App. 35, 29 P.3d 1177 (2001), rev. allowed 330 Or. 288, 49 P.3d 797 (2002) (if a statutory analysis is sufficient to resolve the legality of a restraint of liberty, a constitutional analysis is unnecessary). We are not aware of any statute that would authorize Deese's conduct, and the ... ...
  • State v. Ehret
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • October 2, 2002
    ... ... In State v. Amaya, 176 Or.App. 35, 44, 29 P.3d 1177 (2001), rev. allowed, 334 Or. 288, 49 P.3d 797 (2002), we explained, ... "[Q]uestioning during an otherwise valid traffic stop that does not have such a detaining effect does not require reasonable suspicion. That is because, under Toevs, it is detention ... ...
  • State v. Wood
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 2003
    ... ... It is now clear, for example, that ORS 810.410(3)(e) authorizes police to request consent to search during a lawful traffic stop even with no individualized suspicion and that neither Article I, section 9, nor the Fourth Amendment prohibits such a request. State v. Amaya, 176 Or.App. 35, 44, 47, 29 P.3d 1177 (2001), rev. allowed, 334 Or. 288, 49 P.3d 797 (2002); State v. Duffy, 176 Or.App. 49, 52-53, 29 P.3d 1222 (2001). Further, some of the arguments are irrelevant. It does not matter, for example, whether the historical facts demonstrate a single stop or two ... ...
  • State v. Boatman
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 2002
    ... ... "(1) The United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution[.]"3 ...         In asserting that the request for consent here offended Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, defendant invokes State v. Amaya, 176 Or.App. 35, 29 P.3d 1177 (2001), rev. allowed, 334 Or. 288, 49 P.3d 797 (2002), which explored the question of whether evidence needed to be suppressed when an officer asked for consent unrelated to a traffic stop where that stop was validly ongoing. In answering that question, we ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT