State v. Matthys
| Decision Date | 20 June 1991 |
| Citation | 311 Or. 433,812 P.2d 828 |
| Parties | State v. Matthys (Jason F.D.) NOS. A63693, S38130 |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
106 Or.App. 276, 808 P.2d 94. Van Hoomissen, J., would allow.
DENIED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
7 cases
-
State v. Lumpkin
... ... An officer's generalized concern for safety is not sufficient to justify a frisk. Rather, the officer must articulate particularized facts creating a reasonable suspicion that the stopped person poses an immediate threat. State v. Matthys, 106 Or.App. 276, 282, 808 P.2d 94 (1990), rev. den. 311 Or. 433, 812 P.2d 828 (1991) ... At the suppression hearing, Officer Ludwig identified such particularized facts. He testified that he thought that defendant was about to run away from him or was possibly going to fight ... ...
-
State v. Stanley
... ... 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 an immediate threat: (1) Maloney was confronted with a subject who appeared to be very intoxicated ... ...
-
State v. Reinhardt
... ... Id. at 525, 747 P.2d 991 ... Intuition and generalized fear do not give rise to reasonable suspicion of an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others present at a search. State v. Smay, 118 Or.App. 31, 34, 845 P.2d 1294 (1993); State v. Matthys, 106 Or.App. 276, 282, 808 P.2d 94, rev. den., 311 Or. 433, 812 P.2d 828 (1991); State v. Houghton, 91 Or.App. 71, 75, 754 P.2d 13 (1988); State v. Hicks, 89 Or.App. 540, 544, 749 P.2d 1221 (1988). The fact that an individual is attired in a black leather jacket and has long hair and a beard is ... ...
-
State v. Jackson
... ... In such circumstances, an officer must articulate particularized facts creating a reasonable suspicion that a person poses an immediate threat. State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66, 81, 854 P.2d 421 (1993); State v. Matthys, 106 Or.App. 276, 282, 808 P.2d 94, rev. den. 311 Or. 433, 812 P.2d 828 (1991). In contrast, in searches incident to arrest, the officer need only articulate a reasonable concern for safety. State v. Smith, supra, 103 Or.App. at 117 n. 2, 796 P.2d 665. Whether a generalized concern is ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results