State v. Benfit

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Benfit

134 P.3d 171, 205 Or. App. 180, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 505

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 19, 2006

Docket03FE0531AB; A125422

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 P.3d 171 (State v. Benfit) 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. Benfit, 134 P.3d 171, 205 Or. App. 180, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 505 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Former ORS 475.992 (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.840 (2005). He assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence that police obtained during a traffic stop. Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for a traffic infraction. A deputy sheriff asked for, and obtained, defendant’s identification for a warrant check and apparently did not return the identification to defendant. Meanwhile, the deputy asked for, and obtained, consent from defendant to conduct a pat-down search, which resulted in the deputy discovering defendant’s possession of controlled substances. At trial, defendant moved to suppress on the ground that retaining his identification amounted to an unlawful stop and that his consent to the search was obtained through exploitation of that unlawful stop. The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying the motion. The state agrees that, in fight of State v. Hall, 339 Or 7, 115 P3d 908 (2005), the trial court erred. We agree and accept the state’s concession.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Former ORS 475.992 (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.840 (2005). He assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence that police obtained during a traffic stop. Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for a traffic infraction. A deputy sheriff asked for, and obtained, defendant’s identification for a warrant check and apparently did not return the identification to defendant. Meanwhile, the deputy asked for, and obtained, consent from defendant to conduct a pat-down search, which resulted in the deputy discovering defendant’s possession of controlled substances. At trial, defendant moved to suppress on the ground that retaining his identification amounted to an unlawful stop and that his consent to the search was obtained through exploitation of that unlawful stop. The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying the motion. The state agrees that, in fight of State v. Hall, 339 Or 7, 115 P3d 908 (2005), the trial court erred. We agree and accept the state’s concession.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 P.3d 171, 205 Or. App. 180, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-benfit-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack