1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 743 P.2d
  5. 743 P.2d 692 (1987)
 

NELSON v. LANE COUNTY

TC No. 16-83-05689; CA A32607; SC S33066, S33082 and S33115.

743 P.2d 692 (1987)

304 Or. 97

Lynda NELSON, Respondent On Review, v. LANE COUNTY, David Burks, Respondents, and Department of State Police, John C. Williams, K.E. Chichester, and Richard Geistwhite, Petitioners On Review. Lynda Nelson, Petitioner On Review, v. LANE COUNTY, David Burks, Department of State Police, John C. Williams, K.E. Chichester, and Richard Geistwhite, Respondents On Review. Lynda Nelson, Respondent On Review, v. LANE COUNTY, David Burks, Petitioners On Review, and Department of State Police, John C. Williams, K.E. Chichester, and Richard Geistwhite, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Decided September 15, 1987.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for petitioners on review, Dept. of State Police, John C. Williams, K.E. Chichester, and Richard Geistwhite. With him on the petition, additional authorities, and memorandum in response to court's questions were Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen. and Richard D. Wasserman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.

Robert D. Durham, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner on review, Lynda Nelson. With him on the petition and memorandum of law was Kulongoski, Durham, Drummonds & Colombo, Portland.

Robert C. Cannon, Marion County Legal Counsel, Salem, argued the cause and filed the Lane County memorandum of law for petitioners on review, Lane County and David Burks. On the petition for review was John Hoag, Lane County Office of Legal Counsel, Eugene.

Robert C. Cannon, Marion County Legal Counsel, Salem, filed an amicus curiae brief in behalf of Marion County Bd. of Comm'rs, Jackson County Bd. of Com'rs, Oregon Sheriffs Ass'n, Oregon Ass'n of Police Chiefs, and Oregon Dist. Attys. Ass'n.

Before PETERSON, C.J., and LENT, LINDE, CAMPBELL, CARSON and JONES, JJ.

CARSON, Justice.

This is the first of three cases we decide today involving the legality of sobriety roadblocks (that is, roadblocks conducted for the purpose of discovering persons driving while under the influence of intoxicants). The two companion cases are appeals from criminal convictions in which we held that state and local officials violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. State v. Boyanovsky, 304 Or. 131

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases