4th Amendment Lawyer – Oregon Search & Seizure Rights - Arnold Law in Eugene, Oregon – Powerful Advocacy. Proven Results.

4th Amendment Lawyer – Oregon Search & Seizure Rights

Fourth Amendment law involves unreasonable searches and seizures and search warrants. The case law involves the interplay between privacy and the courts’ desires to winnow down those rights against unreasonable searches and seizures to increase the feeling of a police state upon its citizens. Should we sacrifice liberty for a feeling safety? Are we a nation of cowards?


The 4th Amendment of the federal constitution is pretty explicit regarding the requirement for a search warrant and a reasonable search and seizure. However, Oregon courts and the United States Supreme Court have come up with repeated exceptions to the Bill of Rights’ search warrant requirement.

Federal and Oregon Search and Seizure Law

An illegal search and seizure may be identified and litigated in an Oregon criminal law case via a motion to suppress. A faulty search warrant that contains misrepresentations or a lack of probable cause may be litigated in federal court or Oregon state court through a motion to controvert.

Regarding school search and seizure law there is an increasing awareness among parents that many public schools are not looking out for the best interests of their children. In fact, Arnold Law of Eugene was successful in litigating an unreasonable seizure of a middle school student.

Eugene Oregon Search Warrant Lawyers

Not only must a search warrant describe with specific particularity the items authorized to be seized, a search warrant must also authorize a search only for those items for which there is probable cause to seize. The warrant in many Oregon cases fails both of these particularity requirements.

Over-breadth deals with the requirement that the scope of the warrant be limited by the probable cause on which the warrant is based. In State v. Ingram, the Oregon Supreme Court states, “if the search warrant describes premises in such a way that it makes possible the invasion of this interest in privacy without the foundation of probable cause for the search, the warrant is too broad and therefore constitutionally defective.” 313 Or at 144. Generic classifications in a warrant are acceptable only when a more precise description is not possible. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 926 F 2d 847, 856-57 (9th Cir 1991); Hill, 459 F 3d at 973-76; SDI Future Health, Inc., 568 F 3d at 702-03; State v. Hodges, 43 Or App 547 (1979); State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132 (1990). See also State v. Duarte, 237 Or App 13 (2010); Castilleja, 345 Or 255 (2008) (holding there must be probable cause to believe the search would discover specified things in requested places).

Illegal Search and Seizure Criminal Defense Attorneys

At Arnold Law, our criminal defense team has attorneys who specialize in criminal defense motion practice, which includes motions to suppress and motions to controvert.  For more information, call 541-338-9111 or fill out the form to the left (or live chat with us to the right).


Interpreters Available
  • Representative Cases

    Sodomy I (Jessica’s Law) – 3 Measure 11 counts dismissed after innocence proved

    This was a Jessica’s Law case where, if convicted, Client was facing a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 25 to 75 years in prison. Client passed a polygraph in the case and his attorneys Mike Arnold and Lissa Casey conducted an investigation illustrating his actual innocence.

    Michael Arnold, stated, “Our client is thankful for his release and dismissal of these terrible false accusations against him. He was a wrongfully accused innocent man who had three months of his life stolen from him due to lies and an incomplete investigation. Arnold Law’s investigation showed a lack of motive and lack of opportunity to commit the acts alleged against him.The Government’s incomplete investigation turned what should have been an uncomfortable family matter involving a very troubled child into an unjustly incarcerated man and placed unthinkable stress on his family...”

    Sex Abuse Case dismissed

    Client charged with sexually abusing his employee. After an investigation showed that some of the complaining witnesses recanted their statements and motives for false accusations discovered, case dismissed before trial.

    Custody case motivates false Measure 11 accusations against father

    Client jailed with $1.68 million bail setting after being falsely accused of smothering his wife with a pillow and sexually assaulting two adoptive daughters, among other claims. The case eventually resolved with an Alford Plea to one count of coercion for allegedly forcing a remote control out of wife’s hands, which is expungeable at the end of probation, no additional jail time, and a dismissal of all remaining charges. After the dismissal, client was able to resume parenting time with his biological daughter and continue to be an active father.

    Attempted Sex Abuse I – Dismissed

    Client accused of having unwanted sexual contact with a woman while she slept in a hotel room. After thorough defense investigation of witnesses to incident were presented to the DA, all charges were dismissed before trial.


    Sexual Harassment Defense – Hospital Administrator Stalking

    Mike Arnold defended the administrator of a hospital who pursued a relationship with a young woman who was apparently giving him mixed signals. Before contacting our firm he was convicted of a criminal stalking charge and lost a stalking order trial. She then sued him for $500,000 claiming sexual harassment, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In a Marion County jury trial after a brutal cross-examination of the plaintiff and picking apart their psychologist expert, we won a defense verdict.


    Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings – False Stalking Order to Gain Custody

    Received a $50,000 judgment through bankruptcy adversarial proceeding due to mother lying to get a stalking order.

    Stalking Order – Lying about Rape to Gain Custody

    We won a dismissal after trial. Court made findings of fact that stalking order was brought for an improper purpose.


    Measure 11 Dismissal

    “I am not a resident of Oregon and was put in the awkward position of finding a competent attorney for my son who had just been charged with a very serious felony while attending a university here. My wife and I interviewed a number of the top attorneys throughout the state and also asked for advice from several attorney friends and a judge from our home state. None of the numerous attorneys we interviewed came close to the quality, knowledge and compassion of the Arnold Law Firm. They took care of my son and advised him in jail even before we had agreed to hire them. That really showed me the quality of this firm. I can not say enough good things about their firm. Everyone in the office is professional and personable.

    “My son was represented by Mike Arnold and Emilia Gardner. They are nothing short of incredible and almost like family. They left no stone unturned and worked relentlessly on his case. My son is now a free man and able to move forward with his life. Thank you all for everything you have done. You are the best!”