Legal Opinion

State v. Hemkin

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 6, 1990No. 892104; CA A62153PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.010. Before trial, he moved to suppress evidence of the Intoxilyzer test that was administered after his arrest. The court granted the motion, because the administering officer failed to copy the test result onto the Intoxilyzer checklist. The state appeals, and we reverse.

The facts relevant to defendant’s motion are not disputed. Defendant was given a breath test after his arrest for driving under the influence of intoxicants. The officer complied with all test procedures, but he did not copy the test result shown…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. HolcombCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  2. State v. OlsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  3. State v. RoeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. GalliCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
  2. State v. ValeroCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API