Legal Opinion

State v. Rutledge

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 22, 2011No. 07CR2448FE; A142053PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNakamoto, J.

Defendant appeals from a conviction, after a stipulated facts trial, for possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. She argues that her consent to a search of her handbag was the result of an illegal stop and that the trial court therefore erred in denying her motion to suppress. See State v. Hall, 339 Or 7, 115 P3d 908 (2005) (when a defendant’s consent for officer to search defendant was product of unlawful stop, evidence obtained during the stop was inadmissable). We agree that defendant’s interaction with the sheriffs deputies became a stop before the deputies acquired the evidence in…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State v. RodgersOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  4. State v. AshbaughOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  5. State v. AmayaOregon Supreme Court · 2004

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. BertschCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  2. State v. Espinoza-BarraganCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  3. State v. FarrarCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  4. State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  5. State v. DampierCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011

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

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

Powered by the Exa API