State v. Riegelmann
639 P.2d 1305, 55 Or. App. 822, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 2504
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided February 2, 1982·No. No. C80-10-33535, CA A20182 (control), No. C80-11-33990, CA A20183·Published
Opinion
Defendant appeals from a trial court order denying his motion to suppress evidence. He alleges error in the trial court’s denial of a right to present oral argument on the motion. That was not error. See State v. Gholston, 55 Or App 790, 639 P2d 1302 (1981). A second search was with defendant’s voluntary consent and it was not tainted by any preceding illegality. State v. Quinn, 290 Or 383, 623 P2d 630 (1981).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Riegelmann, 639 P.2d 1305, 55 Or. App. 822, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 2504 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
639 P.2d 1305 (State v. Riegelmann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Gholston
639 P.2d 1302 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1982)
State v. Quinn
623 P.2d 630 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1981)