State v. Yeomans
731 P.2d 1072, 83 Or. App. 512, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 2836
Opinion
Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, the sole issue is whether a warrant was necessary to open the “see through” ziplock bag, lawfully seized from defendant at the time of his arrest, and to test the white powder that was visible to the officer. The trial court held that no warrant was necessary and denied defendant’s motion to suppress the test results. There is no error. State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 729 P2d 524 (1986); cf. State v. Westlund, 302 Or 225, 729 P2d 541 (1986).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Yeomans, 731 P.2d 1072, 83 Or. App. 512, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 2836 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
731 P.2d 1072 (State v. Yeomans) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Westlund
729 P.2d 541 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1986)
State v. Owens
729 P.2d 524 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1986)