State v. Holbrook

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Holbrook

653 P.2d 241, 60 Or. App. 159, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 4093

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 3, 1982

DocketNo. 10-81-08482, CA A23672, No. 10-81-08483, CA A23673

StatusPublished

This text of 653 P.2d 241 (State v. Holbrook) 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. Holbrook, 653 P.2d 241, 60 Or. App. 159, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 4093 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, a 19-year old inmate of the MacLaren School for Boys, was suspected of having committed two burglaries in Cottage Grove. At the request of the Cottage Grove Police Department, without a warrant and over his objection, he was taken to the Woodburn Police Department and fingerprinted. Upon being told that his fingerprints matched prints found at the burglary scenes, defendant confessed to the crimes under investigation. He was subsequently convicted of two counts of Burglary in the Second Degree. He appeals, assigning as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress fingerprints together with the statements made after the fingerprints were used to connect him with the present burglaries. We find no violation of defendant’s state or federal constitutional rights, and therefore affirm. See United States v. Dionisio, 410 US 1, 13-16, 93 S Ct 764, 35 L Ed 2d 67 (1973); compare Davis v. Mississippi, 394 US 721, 89 S Ct 1394, 22 L Ed 2d 676 (1969).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, a 19-year old inmate of the MacLaren School for Boys, was suspected of having committed two burglaries in Cottage Grove. At the request of the Cottage Grove Police Department, without a warrant and over his objection, he was taken to the Woodburn Police Department and fingerprinted. Upon being told that his fingerprints matched prints found at the burglary scenes, defendant confessed to the crimes under investigation. He was subsequently convicted of two counts of Burglary in the Second Degree. He appeals, assigning as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress fingerprints together with the statements made after the fingerprints were used to connect him with the present burglaries. We find no violation of defendant’s state or federal constitutional rights, and therefore affirm. See United States v. Dionisio, 410 US 1, 13-16, 93 S Ct 764, 35 L Ed 2d 67 (1973); compare Davis v. Mississippi, 394 US 721, 89 S Ct 1394, 22 L Ed 2d 676 (1969).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 P.2d 241, 60 Or. App. 159, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 4093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-holbrook-orctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack