State v. Avila

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Avila

492 P.3d 640, 492 P.3d 1289, 313 Or. App. 809, 313 Or. App. 798

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 11, 2021

DocketA173239

StatusPublished

This text of 492 P.3d 640 (State v. Avila) 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. Avila, 492 P.3d 640, 492 P.3d 1289, 313 Or. App. 809, 313 Or. App. 798 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted June 4, reversed and remanded August 11, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALEX MAGANA AVILA, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 19CR47798; A173239 492 P3d 1289

Patricia Crain, Senior 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 Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 313 Or App 798 (2021) 799

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine based on evi- dence found in defendant’s backpack after police stopped a vehicle in which he was riding. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evi- dence found in the backpack because the police seized the backpack without a lawful basis, thereby violating Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The state concedes that the trial court erred in denying the motion, because the police did not have a lawful justification for seizing the back- pack, which was not connected to the investigation that was being conducted and that defendant had tried to leave in the vehicle. We agree with and accept the state’s concession, and we therefore reverse and remand. Reversed and remanded.

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

Submitted June 4, reversed and remanded August 11, 2021

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALEX MAGANA AVILA, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 19CR47798; A173239 492 P3d 1289

Patricia Crain, Senior 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 Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 313 Or App 798 (2021) 799

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine based on evi- dence found in defendant’s backpack after police stopped a vehicle in which he was riding. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evi- dence found in the backpack because the police seized the backpack without a lawful basis, thereby violating Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The state concedes that the trial court erred in denying the motion, because the police did not have a lawful justification for seizing the back- pack, which was not connected to the investigation that was being conducted and that defendant had tried to leave in the vehicle. We agree with and accept the state’s concession, and we therefore reverse and remand. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 P.3d 640, 492 P.3d 1289, 313 Or. App. 809, 313 Or. App. 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-avila-orctapp-2021.