State v. Lumpkin

Decision Date16 May 1995
Citation894 P.2d 469,321 Or. 138
PartiesState v. Jamie Dale Lumpkin NOS. A72934, S42186
CourtOregon Supreme Court

133 Or.App. 265, 891 P.2d 660. Unis, J., would allow.

DENIED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Stanley
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • March 13, 1996
    ... ... 531] "immediate threat." State v. Lumpkin, 133 Or.App. 265, 269, 891 P.2d 660, rev. den. 321 Or. 138, 894 P.2d 469 (1995); State v. Matthys, 106 Or.App. 276, 282, 808 P.2d 94, rev. den. 311 Or. 433, 812 P.2d 828 (1991) ...         Here, the state asserts that the following facts support Maloney's suspicion that defendant posed ... ...
  • State v. Blevins
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • July 24, 1996
    ... ... at 525, 747 P.2d 991 ...         Defendant argues, however, under State v. Lumpkin, 129 Or.App. 601, 880 P.2d 468 (1994), adhered to 133 Or.App. 265, 891 P.2d 660, rev. den. 321 Or. 138, 894 P.2d 469 (1995), that the officer's concern that the container "might" contain a weapon is insufficient to permit the officer to remove it lawfully. 2 Rather, defendant contends that the ... ...
  • State v. Rickard
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 1997
    ... ... Johnson, 120 Or.App. 151, 158, 851 P.2d 1160 (1992), rev den 318 Or. 26, 862 P.2d 1305 (1993) (indicating that there are some circumstances in which officers, for safety purposes, may by-pass the statutory procedures set forth in ORS 131.625). Cf. State v. Lumpkin, 129 Or.App. 601, 606, 880 P.2d 468, rev den 320 Or. 315, 882 P.2d 602 (1994) ("reasonableness in all circumstances" is the key inquiry under ORS 131.625), on remand 133 Or.App. 265, 891 P.2d 660, rev den 321 Or. 138, 894 P.2d 469 (1995). Rather, officer safety measures in the context of a stop ... ...
  • State v. Miears
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • March 15, 2000
    ... ... State v. Kurtz, 46 Or.App. 617, 620-21, 612 P.2d 749, rev. den. 289 Or. 588 (1980). We have held that these same principles apply in instances where an officer, during the course of a frisk, seizes an item that the officer believes contains a dangerous or deadly weapon. State v. Lumpkin, 133 Or.App. 265, 269, 891 P.2d 660, rev. den. 321 Or. 138, 894 P.2d 469 (1995). The crucial questions here become whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion that what he felt was a weapon, or contained a weapon, before he removed it from defendant's pocket and whether the state met its burden ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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