State v. Fuller

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Fuller

213 P.3d 861, 230 Or. App. 239, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1093

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 5, 2009

Docket06FE1061MA; A136699

StatusPublished

This text of 213 P.3d 861 (State v. Fuller) 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. Fuller, 213 P.3d 861, 230 Or. App. 239, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

*240 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.840, that was entered after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence and he entered a conditional guilty plea. On appeal, defendant contends, in part, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution because the warrantless search was not justified by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. A discussion of the facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. The state concedes that the search “was not authorized under the automobile exception.” (Boldface omitted.) We accept the concession as well founded. State v. Kock, 302 Or 29, 33, 725 P2d 1285 (1986) (holding that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement does not apply to a vehicle that is “parked, immobile and unoccupied at the time the police first encountered it in connection with the investigation of a crime”); see also State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (applying automobile exception).

Reversed and remanded.

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

*240 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.840, that was entered after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence and he entered a conditional guilty plea. On appeal, defendant contends, in part, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution because the warrantless search was not justified by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. A discussion of the facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. The state concedes that the search “was not authorized under the automobile exception.” (Boldface omitted.) We accept the concession as well founded. State v. Kock, 302 Or 29, 33, 725 P2d 1285 (1986) (holding that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement does not apply to a vehicle that is “parked, immobile and unoccupied at the time the police first encountered it in connection with the investigation of a crime”); see also State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 149 P3d 1155 (2006) (applying automobile exception).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 P.3d 861, 230 Or. App. 239, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fuller-orctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack