{"id":4287,"date":"2010-07-08T07:21:46","date_gmt":"2010-06-13T12:23:10","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-06-13T12:23:10","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4287","title":{"rendered":"OR: School search under state constitution is valid on RS not PC"},"content":{"rendered":"

School search under Oregon Constitution requires only reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. The court of appeals erred in requiring PC. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. M. A. D.<\/a>, 348 Ore. 381 (June 10, 2010), revg State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. M. A. D.<\/a>, 226 Ore. App. 21, 202 P.3d 249 (2009):<\/p>\n

We conclude that the school context is sufficiently different from the setting in which ordinary police-citizen interactions occur to justify an exception to the warrant requirement in certain circumstances, and we turn to the scope and application of the state’s proposed exception. First, we describe what we view as the closest analogy to that exception, the long-standing and well-defined “officer-safety exception” to the warrant requirement of Article I, section 9. Under the officer-safety exception, a police officer may take “reasonable steps” — including a limited search — to protect the officer or others if, “during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that the citizen might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officer or to others then present.” State v. Foster<\/a>, 347 Ore. 1, 8, 217 P3d 168 (2009) (quoting State v. Bates<\/a>, 304 Ore. 519, 524, 747 P2d 991 (1987)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The officer-safety exception is necessary because of the unique circumstances to which it applies:<\/p>\n

“‘A police officer in the field frequently must make life-or-death decisions in a matter of seconds. There may be little or no time in which to weigh the magnitude of a potential safety risk against the intrusiveness of protective measures. An officer must be allowed considerable latitude to take safety precautions in such situations. Our inquiry therefore is limited to whether the precautions taken were reasonable under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time that the decision was made.'”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Id. (quoting Bates<\/a>, 304 Ore. at 524-25). …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4287","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4287\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}