State v. Fortune

800 P.2d 1091, 104 Or. App. 528, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1659
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Fortune. Read the opinion of the Court — 112 Or. App. 247
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided December 5, 1990·No. C88-10-37114; CA A61338·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized in a search of his person. The search involved is the same one that we reviewed in State v. Yoakum, 104 Or App 291, 799 P2d 1150 (1990), and concluded was unlawful. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

State v. Fortune, 800 P.2d 1091, 104 Or. App. 528, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1659 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

800 P.2d 1091 (State v. Fortune) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Yoakum
799 P.2d 1150 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1990)