State v. Parra

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Parra

209 P.3d 425, 228 Or. App. 748, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 741

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 27, 2009

DocketC071812CR; A137569

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 P.3d 425 (State v. Parra) 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. Parra, 209 P.3d 425, 228 Or. App. 748, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 741 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance. ORS 475.840(3)(b). She assigns error to the denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained when a police officer retained her identification and asked for consent to search her after the initial basis for the stop had dissipated. The state concedes that, once the officer no longer had reasonable suspicion that defendant had engaged in criminal conduct, the retention of her identification created an unlawful seizure, and the request for consent to search was the product of that unlawful seizure. We agree with the parties that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. See State v. Strader, 224 Or App 38, 43, 197 P3d40 (2008) (retaining identification after the time necessary to complete initial lawful stop is an unlawful seizure).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance. ORS 475.840(3)(b). She assigns error to the denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained when a police officer retained her identification and asked for consent to search her after the initial basis for the stop had dissipated. The state concedes that, once the officer no longer had reasonable suspicion that defendant had engaged in criminal conduct, the retention of her identification created an unlawful seizure, and the request for consent to search was the product of that unlawful seizure. We agree with the parties that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. See State v. Strader, 224 Or App 38, 43, 197 P3d40 (2008) (retaining identification after the time necessary to complete initial lawful stop is an unlawful seizure).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 P.3d 425, 228 Or. App. 748, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-parra-orctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack