State v. Armstrong-Funk

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Armstrong-Funk

454 P.3d 851, 301 Or. App. 664

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 2, 2020

DocketA168574

StatusPublished

This text of 454 P.3d 851 (State v. Armstrong-Funk) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Armstrong-Funk, 454 P.3d 851, 301 Or. App. 664 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted December 6, 2019, reversed and remanded January 2, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DESIREE GALENA ARMSTRONG-FUNK, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 18CR25996; A168574 454 P3d 851

Charles M. Zennaché, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Joshua B. Crowther, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Leigh A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 301 Or App 664 (2020) 665

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of her motel room. She asserts that the search was not justified by an exception to the warrant requirement and violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The state concedes that no exception to the warrant requirement jus- tified the warrantless search of defendant’s room. We agree that, under the circumstances presented here, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress; we accept the state’s concession and reverse and remand. Reversed and remanded.

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

Submitted December 6, 2019, reversed and remanded January 2, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DESIREE GALENA ARMSTRONG-FUNK, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 18CR25996; A168574 454 P3d 851

Charles M. Zennaché, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Joshua B. Crowther, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Leigh A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 301 Or App 664 (2020) 665

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of her motel room. She asserts that the search was not justified by an exception to the warrant requirement and violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The state concedes that no exception to the warrant requirement jus- tified the warrantless search of defendant’s room. We agree that, under the circumstances presented here, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress; we accept the state’s concession and reverse and remand. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 P.3d 851, 301 Or. App. 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-armstrong-funk-orctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack