Legal Opinion

State v. Mendoza

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 22, 1993No. C91-08-33864; CA A72112PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, C. J.

Defendant was charged with delivery and possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. The state appeals an order, made before trial, suppressing drugs and money seized from defendant’s person. ORS 138.060(3). It argues that the police officers had probable cause to arrest defendant and that the resulting search incident to the arrest was lawful. We reverse.

The evidence presented by the state on defendant’s motion was undisputed and consisted of the testimony of one police officer. Defendant offered no evidence and the court made only cursory findings.

Officers Butler and Coffman were on…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. ColeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  2. State v. NormanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Pierre Arboireau and Sandrine Arboireau v. Adidas-Salomon Ag, a Foreign Corporation and Adidas America, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  2. State v. SpruillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  3. State v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  4. State v. VantressCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  5. State v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997

1 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