State v. Leppanen
| Decision Date | 16 April 1969 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Steven Erik LEPPANEN, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Donald C. McClain, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Phillips, Coughlin, Buell & Phillips, Portland.
Jacob B. Tanzer, Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, Dist. Atty., Portland.
Before McALLISTER, P.J., and O'CONNELL and DENECKE, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for the crime of the illegal sale of narcotics. Plaintiff assigns as error the trial court's refusal to suppress certain evidence which plaintiff contends was obtained through an illegal search and seizure.
The evidence sought to be suppressed was a quantity of marijuana which was obtained by a police officer under the following circumstances. David Emmerson, an officer with the Portland Police Department, was assigned the job of investigating the sale of narcotics by students at Portland State College. Emmerson was enrolled at the college, grew a mustache and beard, and wore a sport jacket and slacks. An informer reported to the police department that he believed that narcotics were being sold at defendant's apartment. Emmerson and the informer went to the apartment house and walked into defendant's apartment without invitation. The informer introduced Emmerson to defendant. Defendant asked them if they had come to get some 'grass.' Emmerson indicated that he wanted some marijuana whereupon defendant obtained it from another room and sold some of it to Emmerson.
Defendant contends that Emmerson unlawfully entered his premises and since the evidence was obtained through an illegal entry the evidence was not admissible.
We are of the opinion that the holding in Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 211, 87 S.Ct. 424, 427, 17 L.Ed.2d 312, 316 (1966), rehearing denied 386 U.S. 939, 87 S.Ct. 951, 17 L.Ed.2d 811, is dispositive of the present case. In that case the Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lien
...for the very purposes contemplated by the occupant," 385 U.S. at 211, 87 S.Ct. 424, a statement that we endorsed in State v. Leppanen , 253 Or. 51, 53, 453 P.2d 172 (1969). "You have to tell me if you’re a cop" is the demand of a criminal about to slip up, not a principle of constitutional ......
-
State v. Tucker
...given by the court, although not in the form requested, adequately covers the subject of the requested instruction. State v. Leppanen, 253 Or. 51, 53, 453 P.2d 172 (1969). See also Laubach v. Industrial Indemnity Co., 286 Or. 217, 225, 593 P.2d 1146 (1979) (not error for trial court to refu......
-
Creps v. State
...it was, an illegal sale . . . to a willing buyer." id. See also, State v. Hollins, 533 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Leppanen,253 Or. 51, 453 P.2d 172 (1969). The purchased cocaine was therefore not inadmissible under the Fourth 2. The Motion for Continuance Trial was originally s......
-
State v. White
...had to find that defendant acted intentionally when he attempted to put Keeney in fear of imminent physical injury. See State v. Leppanen, 253 Or. 51, 453 P.2d 172 (1969); see also State v. Shaw, 68 Or.App. 693, 697, 684 P.2d 7 In his fourth assignment, defendant contends that the court err......