State v. Mendez

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Mendez

444 P.3d 1148, 298 Or. App. 695

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 31, 2019

DocketA167353

StatusPublished

This text of 444 P.3d 1148 (State v. Mendez) 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. Mendez, 444 P.3d 1148, 298 Or. App. 695 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*1149 *696Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, entered after a conditional guilty plea. She assigns error to the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence discovered in the course of a warrantless search that, according to defendant, was not justified by an exception to the warrant requirement and violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The evidence that defendant sought to suppress was found during a search of her person and purse that happened at the county courthouse pursuant to an inventory policy that applies to arrestees and inmates. Defendant argues that she was neither an "arrestee" nor an "inmate" for purpose of the inventory policy. The state concedes the error. We agree that, under the circumstances presented here, the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress; we accept the state's concession and reverse and remand.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

*1149 *696Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, entered after a conditional guilty plea. She assigns error to the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence discovered in the course of a warrantless search that, according to defendant, was not justified by an exception to the warrant requirement and violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The evidence that defendant sought to suppress was found during a search of her person and purse that happened at the county courthouse pursuant to an inventory policy that applies to arrestees and inmates. Defendant argues that she was neither an "arrestee" nor an "inmate" for purpose of the inventory policy. The state concedes the error. We agree that, under the circumstances presented here, the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress; we accept the state's concession and reverse and remand.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 P.3d 1148, 298 Or. App. 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mendez-orctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack