Portland Criminal Defense Attorney BlogThis is the blog for James F. O'Rourke, Jr. and Associates. In this blog we will present information, commentary and our own opinions and philosophy regarding the areas of law in which we practice. It is the purpose of this blog to be informative, helpful and thought provoking. The dynamic interface between the individual and the government is the law. What we mean by that is that when the government sets certain goals, it creates laws to achieve those goals. Those laws touch the lives of the people under the jurisdiction (power) of the government. As criminal defense lawyers, it is our job to make sure that the people we represent receive all of their rights and protections under the law. In some cases, that involves advocating for changes in the law or reinterpretation or correct application of the existing law. As personal injury lawyers, it is our job to make sure that our clients receive all their rights under the law and to secure compensation for the people we represent for injuries and damages they suffer which are caused by the intentional, reckless or negligent acts or omissions of others. |
Posts tagged: Oregon Criminal Defense
Recent Oregon Supreme Court ruling articulates “bright line rule”
Questions about the legality of a search or a seizure can be maddeningly complex. Very small variations in the facts can lead to wildly different results. Most persons accused of crimes are frustrated when they ask their attorney whether a search or seizure was legal and the attorney answers “maybe, it depends on how the evidence unfolds at the hearing.”
However, every so often Oregon Appellate Courts articulate a rule that is so clear that it becomes known as a “bright line rule.” The result is a statement of the law that is so clear and unequivocal that everyone including Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers, prosecutors, judges and the police, understand the rule.
Such is the case with the recent Oregon Supreme Court ruling in State v. Rodgers and State v. Kirkeby, two cases that were consolidated for argument and decided together. The question in both cases was whether a police officer performing a routine traffic stop can stray from writing a ticket and ask questions about the presence of drugs or weapons, or even ask for permission to search a persons car, based only on a hunch that the driver is involved in criminal activity.
The answer, according to the Rodgers/Kirkeby case, is an emphatic “no.”
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a police officer conducting a traffic stop must have a “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity or the presence of weapons before he can begin asking questions about drugs or weapons or ask for consent to search. Under Oregon law, a “reasonable suspicion” is a suspicion by a police officer, based on specific facts, that a reasonable person would agree gives the officer a reason to make an inquiry unrelated to the reason for the stop.
Bright line rules are good for everyone. They give clear legal guidance to the police so that they can conduct themselves accordingly during a traffic stop. They also give prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges a clear standard to use to determine when the police have gone too far.
As an Oregon Criminal Defense Attorney James F. O’Rourke, Jr. Represents persons charged with crimes in Oregon courts. He carefully reviews every case to determine whether the actions of the police conform with the standards set by the Constitution.
Tags: Oregon Criminal Defense
Uncategorized | jforourke June 25, 2010 | 
Comments (0)
