State v. Bales

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Bales

183 P.3d 228, 219 Or. App. 487, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 519

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 23, 2008

Docket060130316; A133005

StatusPublished

This text of 183 P.3d 228 (State v. Bales) 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. Bales, 183 P.3d 228, 219 Or. App. 487, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*488 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, former ORS 475.992 (2003), arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. The state concedes that the trial court erred. As explained below, we conclude that the concession is well taken. Consequently, we reverse and remand.

Defendant was stopped by a police officer who subjectively believed that he had reasonable suspicion that defendant was frequenting a place where controlled substances were used, ORS 167.222. In the course of the stop, the officer requested defendant’s identification and retained the identification while he asked for defendant’s consent to a search. The search produced the evidence that defendant sought to suppress. The state concedes that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that defendant had violated ORS 167.222 and, consequently, under State v. Hall, 339 Or 7,115 P3d 908 (2005), the stop was unlawful; the state further acknowledges that no intervening circumstances attenuated the illegality from the consent. We agree.

Reversed and remanded.

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

*488 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, former ORS 475.992 (2003), arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. The state concedes that the trial court erred. As explained below, we conclude that the concession is well taken. Consequently, we reverse and remand.

Defendant was stopped by a police officer who subjectively believed that he had reasonable suspicion that defendant was frequenting a place where controlled substances were used, ORS 167.222. In the course of the stop, the officer requested defendant’s identification and retained the identification while he asked for defendant’s consent to a search. The search produced the evidence that defendant sought to suppress. The state concedes that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that defendant had violated ORS 167.222 and, consequently, under State v. Hall, 339 Or 7,115 P3d 908 (2005), the stop was unlawful; the state further acknowledges that no intervening circumstances attenuated the illegality from the consent. We agree.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 P.3d 228, 219 Or. App. 487, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bales-orctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack