State v. Barker

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Barker

868 P.2d 1355, 126 Or. App. 409, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 176

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided February 16, 1994·No. TC91-13211; CA A72705·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The state appeals the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of defendant’s performance on field sobriety tests because of the officer’s failure to advise him of the consequences of refusing to perform the tests, as required by ORS 813.135 and ORS 813.136. Failure to advise a defendant of the consequences of refusal is not a basis to suppress evidence of the tests, provided that they were otherwise voluntarily performed. State v. Trenary, 316 Or 172, 850 P2d 356 (1993). The trial court concluded here that the tests were voluntarily performed. Accordingly, it erred in granting the motion to suppress.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

The state appeals the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of defendant’s performance on field sobriety tests because of the officer’s failure to advise him of the consequences of refusing to perform the tests, as required by ORS 813.135 and ORS 813.136. Failure to advise a defendant of the consequences of refusal is not a basis to suppress evidence of the tests, provided that they were otherwise voluntarily performed. State v. Trenary, 316 Or 172, 850 P2d 356 (1993). The trial court concluded here that the tests were voluntarily performed. Accordingly, it erred in granting the motion to suppress.

Reversed and remanded.

State v. Barker, 868 P.2d 1355, 126 Or. App. 409, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 176 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

868 P.2d 1355 (State v. Barker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related