Home/Court of Appeals of Oregon/State v. Passmore

State v. Passmore

37 P.3d 215, 178 Or. App. 534, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 1901
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedDecember 26, 2001
DocketC962355CR; A109565
StatusPublished

This text of 37 P.3d 215 (State v. Passmore) 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. Passmore, 37 P.3d 215, 178 Or. App. 534, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 1901 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, arguing that the police officer exceeded his authority under ORS 810.410(3)(b) (1995)1 when he extended a traffic stop to ask defendant to consent to a search of his vehicle without having reasonable suspicion to support the continued detention. The state concedes that, under the law as it existed at the time of the stop, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress, and we agree. State v. Toevs, 327 Or 525, 964 P2d 1007 (1998); State v. Aguilar, 139 Or App 175, 912 P2d 379, rev den 323 Or 265 (1996).

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

State v. Fugate
26 P.3d 802 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2001)
State v. Toevs
964 P.2d 1007 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1998)
State v. Aguilar
912 P.2d 379 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 P.3d 215, 178 Or. App. 534, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 1901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-passmore-orctapp-2001.