State v. Beason

Oregon Supreme Court

State v. Beason

611 P.2d 1150, 289 Or. 215, 1980 Ore. LEXIS 931

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedJune 3, 1980

DocketTC 78-7263, CA 14345, SC 26661

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 611 P.2d 1150 (State v. Beason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Beason, 611 P.2d 1150, 289 Or. 215, 1980 Ore. LEXIS 931 (Or. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

[217]*217PER CURIAM.

We allowed defendant’s petition for review in this case to consider an aspect of a question left open in our decision in State v. Carter/Dawson, 287 Or 479, 600 P2d 873 (1979). That aspect was the extent, if any, to which police could properly detain the driver or owner of a motor vehicle to make a license or registration check after the police have determined there was no basis in fact to charge the driver with the violation of traffic laws for which the "traffic stop” had been made. We have discovered that the record of this case makes it an inappropriate one to explore that aspect of the law; therefore, we now view the petition for review as having been improvidently allowed. It follows that we order the petition dismissed on that basis. Day v. SAIF, 288 Or 77, 602 P2d 258 (1979); Fitch v. Public Welfare Div., 279 Or 297, 567 P2d 117 (1977).

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

[217]*217PER CURIAM.

We allowed defendant’s petition for review in this case to consider an aspect of a question left open in our decision in State v. Carter/Dawson, 287 Or 479, 600 P2d 873 (1979). That aspect was the extent, if any, to which police could properly detain the driver or owner of a motor vehicle to make a license or registration check after the police have determined there was no basis in fact to charge the driver with the violation of traffic laws for which the "traffic stop” had been made. We have discovered that the record of this case makes it an inappropriate one to explore that aspect of the law; therefore, we now view the petition for review as having been improvidently allowed. It follows that we order the petition dismissed on that basis. Day v. SAIF, 288 Or 77, 602 P2d 258 (1979); Fitch v. Public Welfare Div., 279 Or 297, 567 P2d 117 (1977).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

611 P.2d 1150, 289 Or. 215, 1980 Ore. LEXIS 931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-beason-or-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack