OR: Pole camera doesn’t violate state constitution

Pole camera observation didn’t violate the Oregon Constitution. State v. Lane, 347 Or. App. 229 (Feb. 19, 2026).

Probable cause developed after the stop but before the search under the automobile exception. There was also consent. United States v. Camorlinga, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32720 (D. Or. Feb. 18, 2026).*

Defendant’s stop for speeding led to smelling marijuana and a search. Five days later, officers observed him doing an apparent hand-to-hand transaction. There was probable cause for both searches. United States v. Tucker, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32781 (D.S.C. Feb. 18, 2026).*

Defendant’s motion to suppress that alleges no facts as to his arrest allegedly without probable cause states essentially nothing. People v. Honyghan, 2026 NY Slip Op 50154 (N.Y. Co. Feb. 5, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Burden of pleading, Plain view, feel, smell, Pole cameras, State constitution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.