About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

24 Willamette L. Rev. 967 (1988)
Telephonic Search Warrants under the Oregon Constitution: A Call for the Limitation of Exigent Circumstances

handle is hein.journals/willr24 and id is 979 raw text is: TELEPHONIC SEARCH WARRANTS UNDER THE OREGON CONSTITUTION: A CALL FOR THE LIMITATION OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES* The technological revolution has been with us now for some time,' and it affects all parts of society, including the law. For ex- ample, a police officer now may obtain a valid search warrant over the telephone without having to appear personally before a judge or magistrate. This technological advance allows for the issuance of a warrant in instances when, because of time constraints, warrants were not previously possible. At the same time, Oregon courts have achieved a revolution of their own.2 They have rediscovered the primacy of the Oregon Constitution3 and now apply its provisions before they apply the principles of the federal Constitution.' This analytical transition, however, has not been smooth. At various times, current members of the Oregon courts have expressed their frustrations5 with the evolution of search and seizure law under article I, section 9 of the * The author thanks Professor Don Turner for his guidance in the preparation of this Comment. 1. See generally E. MESTHENE, TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE (1970). 2. State v. Owens, 302 Or. 196, 208, 729 P.2d 524, 531 (1986) (Gillette, J., concurring). 3. See Carson, Last Things Last: A Methodological Approach to Legal Argument in State Courts, 19 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 641 (1983); Linde, E Pluribus-Constitutional The- ory and State Courts, 18 GA. L. REV. 165 '(1984); Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States'Bills of Rights, 9 U. BALT. L. REV. 379 (1980); see also Brennan, State Constitu- tions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 HARV. L. REV. 489 (1977). 4. See, e.g., State v. Kennedy, 295 Or. 260, 666 P.2d 1316 (1983) (double jeopardy analysis under article I, section 12); State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 630 P.2d 810 (1981) (equal protection analysis under article I, section 20); Sterling v. Cupp, 290 Or. 611, 625 P.2d 123 (1981) (cruel and unusual punishment analysis under article I, section 13). If a case is decided on independent state grounds, the United States Supreme Court will decline to review it. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 (1983). 5. See, e.g., State v. Bennett, 301 Or. 299, 305, 721 P.2d 1375, 1379 (1986) (Peterson, C.J., concurring) (Looking at the last generation of search and seizure decisions . .. one wonders if there ever will be certainty in the law of search and seizure); State v. Lowry, 295 Or. 337, 365, 667 P.2d 996, 1012-13 (1983) (Jones, J., concurring) (court's opinion will cause lawyers and judges to sit down for hours to attempt to unscramble what it stands for); State v. Dixson/Digby, 87 Or. App. 1, 16-17, 740 P.2d 1224, 1233-34 (1987) (Van Hoomissen, J., dissenting) (finding no principled reason to look beyond the language of the constitution).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most