State v. Montoya

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Montoya

221 P.3d 833, 232 Or. App. 278, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1832

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 25, 2009

DocketC072850CR D062606M C051246CR A138520 (Control) A138625 A138626

StatusPublished

This text of 221 P.3d 833 (State v. Montoya) 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. Montoya, 221 P.3d 833, 232 Or. App. 278, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1832 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

*279 PER CURIAM

In this consolidated appeal, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of possession of methamphetamine (Case Number A138520) and two judgments revoking his probation in other cases (Case Numbers A138625 and A138626). He assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a police officer stopped him for bicycling without a visible light, a traffic violation. Defendant argues that the officer unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution by asking him if he was on probation and by requesting consent to search without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. He also claims that the officer violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by exceeding the subject matter of the lawful traffic stop.

The state agrees that, under this court’s decisions in State v. Kirkeby, 220 Or App 177, 185 P3d 510, rev allowed, 345 Or 301 (2008), and State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 182 P3d 209, rev allowed, 345 Or 301 (2008), the trial court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress. We agree that Rodgers and Kirkeby are controlling and that, under those decisions, the trial court erred. We thus need not consider defendant’s argument under the Fourth Amendment.

Because it appears that defendant’s conduct that resulted in his conviction for possession of methamphetamine in Case Number A138520 also formed the basis for the trial court’s finding that defendant violated his probation in Case Numbers A138625 and A138626, the probation revocation judgments in those cases must also be reversed and remanded to the trial court for reconsideration in light of the reversal of defendant’s conviction in Case Number A138520. State v. Huggett, 228 Or App 569, 578-79, 209 P3d 285 (2009).

Case Number A138520, Case Number A138625, and Case Number A138626 reversed and remanded.

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

*279 PER CURIAM

In this consolidated appeal, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of possession of methamphetamine (Case Number A138520) and two judgments revoking his probation in other cases (Case Numbers A138625 and A138626). He assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a police officer stopped him for bicycling without a visible light, a traffic violation. Defendant argues that the officer unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution by asking him if he was on probation and by requesting consent to search without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. He also claims that the officer violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by exceeding the subject matter of the lawful traffic stop.

The state agrees that, under this court’s decisions in State v. Kirkeby, 220 Or App 177, 185 P3d 510, rev allowed, 345 Or 301 (2008), and State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 182 P3d 209, rev allowed, 345 Or 301 (2008), the trial court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress. We agree that Rodgers and Kirkeby are controlling and that, under those decisions, the trial court erred. We thus need not consider defendant’s argument under the Fourth Amendment.

Because it appears that defendant’s conduct that resulted in his conviction for possession of methamphetamine in Case Number A138520 also formed the basis for the trial court’s finding that defendant violated his probation in Case Numbers A138625 and A138626, the probation revocation judgments in those cases must also be reversed and remanded to the trial court for reconsideration in light of the reversal of defendant’s conviction in Case Number A138520. State v. Huggett, 228 Or App 569, 578-79, 209 P3d 285 (2009).

Case Number A138520, Case Number A138625, and Case Number A138626 reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 P.3d 833, 232 Or. App. 278, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-montoya-orctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack