1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 857 P.2d
  5. 857 P.2d 204 (1993)
 

STATE v. CASTEEL

91-CR-0039-15; CA A72706 (Control), 91-CR-0059-15; CA A72707, 91-CR-0040-15; CA A72708, 91-CR-0041-15; CA A72709, 91-CR-0050; CA A72710, 91-CR-0052; CA A72711, 91-CR-0054; CA A72712, 91-CR-0062; CA A72713, 91-CR-0065; CA A72714, 91-CR-0051-15; CA A72715, 91-CR-0055-15; CA A72716, 91-CR0063-15; CA A72717, 91-CR-0067-15; CA A72718 and 91-CR-0071-15; CA A72719.

857 P.2d 204 (1993)

122 Or. App. 218

STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Bobbie Lee CASTEEL, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Danny Louis CASTEEL, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Diane Renee DAVENPORT, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. William Sheldon TALLMAN, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Michael Eugene HENSLEY, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Michael Eugene HENSLEY, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Michael Eugene HENSLEY, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Michael Eugene HENSLEY, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Michael Eugene HENSLEY, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Anthony Wayne McGINNIS, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Linda Louise McGINNIS, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Richard James BRENNER, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Richard James BRENNER, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Mark Douglas GREENE, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided August 4, 1993.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Janie M. Burcart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant in each case. With her on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.

Garrett A. Richardson, Portland, argued the cause for respondents Davenport and Hensley. With him on the brief was Multnomah Defenders, Inc., Portland.

Jesse Wm. Barton, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for respondents Casteel, Tallman, McGinnis, Brenner and Greene. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Before ROSSMAN, P.J., and DE MUNIZ and LEESON, JJ.

DE MUNIZ, Judge.

Defendants were charged with conspiracy and with possession, manufacturing and delivery of controlled substances.1 The trial court granted defendants' motions to suppress tape recordings of conversations that they had with a police informant, because the investigating officers had not obtained an order authorizing their use of a body wire to record the conversations. The state appeals. ORS 138.060(3). We reverse.

...

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