City of Salem v. Guillen
This text of 227 P.3d 171 (City of Salem v. Guillen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
227 P.3d 171, 233 Or. App. 133, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 2150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-salem-v-guillen-orctapp-2009.