State v. Miles

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Miles

798 P.2d 261, 103 Or. App. 533, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1294

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 3, 1990

DocketP136901; CA A63554

StatusPublished

This text of 798 P.2d 261 (State v. Miles) 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. Miles, 798 P.2d 261, 103 Or. App. 533, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1294 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for misuse of an identification card. ORS 807.430. He seeks a new trial, because the record contains no written waiver of a jury trial. He is correct. State v. Halsell, 99 Or App 205, 781 P2d 875 (1989).

Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, because the police officer’s request for his identification was an unlawful detention and violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. Because this issue will arise on retrial, we address it. The asking of preliminary questions, including a request for identification, was not, under the circumstances of this case, a sufficient show of authority to constitute a deprivation of liberty. State v. Warner, 284 Or 147, 165, 585 P2d 681 (1978); State v. Woods, 102 Or App 671, 675, 796 P2d 1209 (1990). We hold that the trial court properly denied the motion.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for misuse of an identification card. ORS 807.430. He seeks a new trial, because the record contains no written waiver of a jury trial. He is correct. State v. Halsell, 99 Or App 205, 781 P2d 875 (1989).

Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, because the police officer’s request for his identification was an unlawful detention and violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. Because this issue will arise on retrial, we address it. The asking of preliminary questions, including a request for identification, was not, under the circumstances of this case, a sufficient show of authority to constitute a deprivation of liberty. State v. Warner, 284 Or 147, 165, 585 P2d 681 (1978); State v. Woods, 102 Or App 671, 675, 796 P2d 1209 (1990). We hold that the trial court properly denied the motion.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

798 P.2d 261, 103 Or. App. 533, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miles-orctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack