State v. Weil

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Weil

200 P.3d 164, 225 Or. App. 65, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1912

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 31, 2008

Docket070342610, A136438

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 P.3d 164 (State v. Weil) 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. Weil, 200 P.3d 164, 225 Or. App. 65, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1912 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*66 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a loaded firearm in a public place, in violation of Portland City Code 14A.60.010, and unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of ORS 166.250. He assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop, during which a police officer asked defendant about the presence of weapons without reasonable suspicion that defendant possessed such weapons. According to defendant, because the officer did not ask the question during an unavoidable lull in the stop or while writing a citation, the officer’s questioning was unlawful. Because the questioning was unlawful, defendant contends, the evidence that resulted from his answers should have been suppressed. The state agrees that, under this court’s decisions in State v. Kirkeby, 220 Or App 177, 185 P3d 510, rev allowed, 345 Or 301 (2008), and State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 182 P3d 209, rev allowed, 345 Or 301 (2008), the trial court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress. We agree that Rodgers and Kirkeby are controlling and that, under those decisions, the trial court erred.

Reversed and remanded.

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

*66 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a loaded firearm in a public place, in violation of Portland City Code 14A.60.010, and unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of ORS 166.250. He assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop, during which a police officer asked defendant about the presence of weapons without reasonable suspicion that defendant possessed such weapons. According to defendant, because the officer did not ask the question during an unavoidable lull in the stop or while writing a citation, the officer’s questioning was unlawful. Because the questioning was unlawful, defendant contends, the evidence that resulted from his answers should have been suppressed. The state agrees that, under this court’s decisions in State v. Kirkeby, 220 Or App 177, 185 P3d 510, rev allowed, 345 Or 301 (2008), and State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 182 P3d 209, rev allowed, 345 Or 301 (2008), the trial court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress. We agree that Rodgers and Kirkeby are controlling and that, under those decisions, the trial court erred.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 P.3d 164, 225 Or. App. 65, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-weil-orctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack