Home/Court of Appeals of Oregon/State v. Yeomans

State v. Yeomans

731 P.2d 1072, 83 Or. App. 512, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 2836
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJanuary 28, 1987
Docket10-85-03342; CA A38068
StatusPublished

This text of 731 P.2d 1072 (State v. Yeomans) 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. Yeomans, 731 P.2d 1072, 83 Or. App. 512, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 2836 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

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

Related

State v. Westlund
729 P.2d 541 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1986)
State v. Owens
729 P.2d 524 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
731 P.2d 1072, 83 Or. App. 512, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 2836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-yeomans-orctapp-1987.