City of Salem v. Guillen

227 P.3d 171, 233 Or. App. 133, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 2150
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided December 30, 2009·No. 07C40078; A136956·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted in Salem Municipal Court of one count of prohibited touching. Salem Revised Code (SRC) 96.300(a). She appealed to Marion County Circuit Court for trial de novo, as authorized by ORS 221.359 and ORS 221.360, and moved to dismiss the charges on the ground (among others) that the code provision violates Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, the state’s free expression guarantee. The court agreed and dismissed the charges. The city appeals.

City of Salem v. Lawrow, 233 Or App 32, 225 P3d 51 (2009), is identical to this case except for the identity of the defendant. In Lawrow, we held that SRC 96.300(a) violated Article I, section 8. That decision controls here.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of Salem v. Guillen, 227 P.3d 171, 233 Or. App. 133, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 2150 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

227 P.3d 171 (City of Salem v. Guillen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Salem v. Guillen
227 P.3d 171 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2009)