State v. Syvertson

229 P.3d 624, 234 Or. App. 783, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 397
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedApril 14, 2010
DocketC075995CVA, A139128
StatusPublished

This text of 229 P.3d 624 (State v. Syvertson) 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. Syvertson, 229 P.3d 624, 234 Or. App. 783, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 397 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

*784 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. ORS 475.864. He is a resident of California and is authorized under the laws of that state to possess and use marijuana for the treatment of “a debilitating conglomeration of symptoms.” At a pretrial hearing, he argued that the officer who arrested him lacked probable cause once defendant established his status as a lawful marijuana user under California law, because Oregon is required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, US Const, Art IV, § 1, to honor California’s law and permit defendant to possess marijuana in accordance with that state’s laws, and that, by enforcing Oregon law against him, the state violated his right to travel from state to state, guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, US Const, Art IV, § 2. The trial court denied defendant’s pretrial motions, and defendant renews his arguments on appeal.

We rejected identical arguments in State v. Berringer, 234 Or App 665, 229 P3d 615 (2010).

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Berringer
229 P.3d 615 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
229 P.3d 624, 234 Or. App. 783, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-syvertson-orctapp-2010.