State v. Bennett

150 P.3d 1071, 210 Or. App. 462, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 13
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Bennett. Read the opinion of the Court — 217 Or. App. 400
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided January 3, 2007·No. 02CR1918FE, 04CR0070FE; A127181, A127182·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, former ORS 475.992 (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.840 (2005).1 She assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence of a syringe of methamphetamine found in her backpack as part of an inventory search. The state concedes that the relevant inventory policy does not meet the requirements of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, for an administrative search. See, e.g., State v. Atkinson, 298 Or 1, 688 P2d 832 (1984); State v. Keller, 265 Or 622, 510 P2d 568 (1973). We agree and accept the state’s concession.

Judgment in Case No. A127181 reversed and remanded; judgment in Case No. A127182 affirmed.

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

State v. Bennett, 150 P.3d 1071, 210 Or. App. 462, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 13 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

150 P.3d 1071 (State v. Bennett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Keller
510 P.2d 568 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1973)
State v. Atkinson
688 P.2d 832 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1984)