State v. Klien, 352 Or 302 (2012)

Holding:     Defendant had no standing to challenge the body-wire order which, in turn, produced evidence which led to his conviction.

1)    Courts determine the meaning of a statutory phrase “by examining the text and context of the statute – including related statutes and case law – and then looking to legislative history as necessary.” referencing State v. Gaines. at p. 309.

2)    Since the statutory definition – “a person against whom the interception was directed” – is written in the passive voice, who or what does the directing is not ascertainable from text. at p. 309.

3)   The legislative history of the statute supports the interpretation of the statute suggested by the “text and context” examination. at p. 310.

4)   Where legislative history reveals that intent was to harmonize state electronic surveillance law with federal law, “we treat pre-existing U.S. Supreme Court decisions * * * as indicative of the legislature’s intent * * *.” at p. 310-11.

Filed under: uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!