stating that an administrative search “could be valid if it were permitted by a source of authority, that is, a law or ordinance providing sufficient indications of the purposes and limits of executive authority” (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- stating that an administrative search “could be valid if it were permitted by a source of authority, that is, a law or ordinance providing sufficient indications of the purposes and limits of executive authority” (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added)
- concluding plaintiff entitled to declaratory judgment because administrative stop and seizure not authorized
- “Seizures or searches for evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution, conducted without a warrant or suspicion of wrongdoing violate Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.”
- Article I, section 9, does not prevent evidence of “another crime” discovered during “a legally authorized and properly administered administrative inspection” from being used in a criminal prosecution
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*112 JONES, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result for the reasons stated by Justice Gillette in his specially concurring opinions in State v. Boyanovsky, 304 Or 131 , 743 P2d 711 (1987), and State v. Anderson, 304 Or 139 , 743 P2d 715 (1987). I agree that there was no Fourth Amendment violation and, therefore, no need to reach the question whether punitive damages or attorney fees are available in federal civil rights actions brought in state court.