Legal Opinion

State v. Guggenmos

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 11, 2009No. 0500398CR; A133266PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, he assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in the room where he was living at a friend’s house. According to defendant, police violated his rights under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by unlawfully stopping him as he was leaving the house and by conducting a “protective sweep” of the residence without a warrant. We review the trial court’s legal conclusions for errors of law, accepting the facts on…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Maryland v. BuieSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. HolmesOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  4. State v. BatesOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  5. State v. CarseyOregon Supreme Court · 1983

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. GuggenmosOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  2. State v. StokkeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  3. State v. GuggenmosOregon Supreme Court · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API