State v. Ready

Decision Date21 October 1997
PartiesState v. Richard Owen Ready NOS. A78407, S44503
CourtOregon Supreme Court

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • State v. Kruchek
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • October 28, 1998
    ...... See Owens, 302 Or. at 206, 729 P.2d 524; State v. Bechtold, 99 Or.App. 593, 783 P.2d 1008 (1989), rev. den. 309 Or. 521, 789 P.2d 1386 (1990). Nor is it a case in which an otherwise concealing container is labeled in a way that reveals its illegal contents. See State v. Ready, 148 Or.App. 149, 939 P.2d 117, rev. den. 326 Or. 68, 950 P.2d 892 (1997) (videotapes labeled "kid porn from Larry--movies then stills" announced contents as contraband). In such cases, the containers in question not only "announce" their contents but do so in a way that announces that contraband ......
  • State v. Sines
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • September 20, 2017
    ......The dissent in Kruchek also relied on State v. Ready , 148 Or.App. 149, 156, 939 P.2d 117, rev den , 326 Or. 68, 950 P.2d 892 (1997), in which we stated that, under Owens , "no warrant is required for the examination of evidence that announces its contents" as contraband and, consequently, held that no warrant was required to watch videotapes ......
  • State v. Bonilla
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 31, 2015
    ...... See, e.g., State v. Fuller, 158 Or.App. 501, 505, 976 P.2d 1137 (1999) (holding that consent, for purposes of Article I, section 9, must be given by a "person with the actual authority to do so"); State v. Ready, 148 Or.App. 149, 152–53, 939 P.2d 117, rev. den., 326 Or. 68, 950 P.2d 892 (1997) (same). As a practical matter, the state was in a poor position to make its consent-based apparent authority argument to any Oregon tribunal other than this court, which has not directly addressed that issue. ......
  • State v. Bellar
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • September 30, 2009
    ......"[W]hen the state relies on the consent of a third party to justify a search under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, the third party must have actual authority to consent." State v. Ready, 148 Or.App. 149, 152-53, 939 P.2d 117, rev. den., 326 Or. 68, 950 P.2d 892 (1997) (citations omitted). See also State v. Fuller, 158 Or.App. 501, 506-07, 976 P.2d 1137 (1999) (third party lacked actual authority to consent to the search of the defendant's nightstand, despite her ability to ......
  • 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