Court Opinion

ID: 9633638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:55:22.368263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:30.576059
License: Public Domain

LENT, J.,
concurring.
I have written several times that when this court interprets a statute, a due regard for stare decisis compels us to adhere to that interpretation. If the legislature believes that the court has erred in statutory interpretation, the legislature has the power to rectify the error. On the other hand, when we interpret the state constitution, that interpretation can only be changed by others by the cumbersome process of constitutional amendment. It is for that reason that I have written in the past that when we are convinced that we have erred in constitutional interpretation we should rectify the error.
In State v. Brown, 301 Or 268, 721 P2d 1357 (1986), over the dissent of Justice Linde and myself, this court adopted the “automobile exception” in interpreting the Oregon Constitution, Article I, section 9.1 hope that someday that error will be rectified by this court. Until that time, the rule of the majority in Brown requires the result reached in the lead opinion in this case.
Linde, J., joins in this concurring opinion.