Home/Court of Appeals of Oregon/State v. Frommelt

State v. Frommelt

837 P.2d 564, 115 Or. App. 384, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1764
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedSeptember 30, 1992
DocketDCR91-12586; CA A72670
StatusPublished

This text of 837 P.2d 564 (State v. Frommelt) 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. Frommelt, 837 P.2d 564, 115 Or. App. 384, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1764 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The state concedes that the trial court erred when it ordered defendant to submit to breath tests at the request of a probation officer but failed to require that the officer first have reasonable grounds to believe that the test would disclose evidence of a probation violation. State v. Leen, 113 Or App 595, 832 P2d 49 (1992); State v. Robertson, 113 Or App 467, 833 P2d 326 (1992); State v. Hagger, 107 Or App 251, 810 P2d 1356 (1991). We accept the concession.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

Related

State v. Hagger
810 P.2d 1356 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1991)
State v. Robertson
833 P.2d 326 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)
State v. Leen
832 P.2d 49 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
837 P.2d 564, 115 Or. App. 384, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-frommelt-orctapp-1992.