DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

Oregon v. Boyanovsky

9/15/1987

--REF-->131.615. The legislature has seen fit not to change its statutory restrictions on this kind of police conduct in three legislative sessions since Tourtillott was decided. It has the power to do so. As presently written, ORS 131.615 does not render these roadblocks illegal.


2. The Search was Unlawful under the Oregon Constitution


Because the foregoing statutory analysis does not render roadblocks illegal per se, I address the constitutional question.


The state argues that the constitutional permissibility of roadblock stops was established in State v. Tourtillott, supra, 289 Or at 853-59. I disagree. As recognized by the lead opinion, Tourtillott is not really a case decided under the Oregon Constitution. While it mentions Oregon Constitution Article I, section 9, its analysis is conducted entirely in Fourth Amendment terms. This court began to back away from Tourtillott in State v. Caraher, 293 Or 741, 748-49 n 7, 653 P2d 942 (1982), the lead opinion is equally chary concerning it, 304 Or at 100-101, and I join in the retreat. The Oregon constitutional issue is an open one.


While open, the issue is not difficult. Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable, subject to certain well-recognized exceptions. State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 225, 709 P2d 225 (1985). None of those exceptions apply here. What has occurred is, quite simply, the seizure of a car and its driver without any probable cause in the hope that, sometime during the ensuing detention, evidence of a crime will be discovered. If Article I, section 9, stands for any proposition, it surely stands for the proposition that such police activity is


unconstitutional. I would affirm the Court of Appeals on this basis.


Jones, J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.


PETERSON, C.J., dissenting.


I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Nelson v. Lane County, 304 Or 97, 743 P2d 692 (1987).



General Footnotes



Page 1 2 3 4 

Oregon DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

DUI Driving Defined Highway Defined
Under Influence Defined DUI/3 Strikes DUI & Manslaughter
DUI & Murder DUI Punishment Sobriety Checkpoints
DMV's Role in DUI Revocation vs. Suspension Field Sobriety Testing
Speed Measurement Prior DUI Convictions Drawing Blood & Consent
Refusal to Test DUI Lawyers Testimonials by Member DUI Lawyers
DUI Articles Ignition Interlock Implied Consent
Summary DUI License Suspension In-home Arrest Vehicle Defined
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.