State v. Pepper

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Pepper

803 P.2d 1213, 105 Or. App. 107, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1770

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 26, 1990

DocketDA 368849, M959220, M959221, M959222; CA A60761; A60762; A60763; A60764

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 803 P.2d 1213 (State v. Pepper) 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. Pepper, 803 P.2d 1213, 105 Or. App. 107, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1770 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for various misdemeanors and traffic offenses. He claims that the trial court erred when it denied his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. The offenses took place in Oregon. He argues that the evidence, seized incident to his arrest, was the fruit of an unlawful search, because the Portland city policemen who performed the search had no authority to pursue him from Oregon into Washington and to arrest him there.

The only issue that defendant presents is the authority of the policemen to make a lawful arrest in Washington for non-felony offenses committed in Oregon. The state points to no authority for the arrest. No issue of concurrent jurisdiction is presented on these facts. See State v. Nearing, 99 Or App 724, 784 P2d 121 (1989), rev den 309 Or 698 (1990).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for various misdemeanors and traffic offenses. He claims that the trial court erred when it denied his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. The offenses took place in Oregon. He argues that the evidence, seized incident to his arrest, was the fruit of an unlawful search, because the Portland city policemen who performed the search had no authority to pursue him from Oregon into Washington and to arrest him there.

The only issue that defendant presents is the authority of the policemen to make a lawful arrest in Washington for non-felony offenses committed in Oregon. The state points to no authority for the arrest. No issue of concurrent jurisdiction is presented on these facts. See State v. Nearing, 99 Or App 724, 784 P2d 121 (1989), rev den 309 Or 698 (1990).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

803 P.2d 1213, 105 Or. App. 107, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pepper-orctapp-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack