Opinion · Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Ehly

109 Or. App. 456

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Date: 1991-10-30
Topic: general

JOSEPH, C. J., dissenting. The majority’s opinion is wonderfully, but dangerously, imaginative. It justifies police conduct on the basis of the officers having seen, outside the motel, someone (not *463defendant) whom they supposedly had reason to fear and their having a justified concern for their safety arising out of a supposedly dangerous situation that was mostly of their own manufacture. It concludes, “[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances here,” 109 Or App at 461, that what happened in the motel room was not a significant interference with defendant’s liberty.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Ehly. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

JOSEPH, C. J.,

dissenting.

The majority’s opinion is wonderfully, but dangerously, imaginative. It justifies police conduct on the basis of the officers having seen, outside the motel, someone (not *463 defendant) whom they supposedly had reason to fear and their having a justified concern for their safety arising out of a supposedly dangerous situation that was mostly of their own manufacture. It concludes, “[cjonsidering the totality of the circumstances here,” 109 Or App at 461, that what happened in the motel room was not a significant interference with defendant’s liberty. I hope, but seriously wonder whether, we have not moved so far down the path of usually supporting police lawlessness that this court will have a majority in every case ready to approve anything done by the police so long as they say that their conduct was motivated by fear. I do not want to travel that route, because it threatens the liberty interests of good people as well as of bad people like defendant in this case.

I dissent.