Legal Opinion

State v. Heikkinen

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 21, 1988No. C87-04-32213; CA A46086PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*474RICHARDSON, P. J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for manufacturing a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence and his motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

Two police officers, involved in an unrelated traffic stop, smelled an odor in the area, which they associated with methamphetamine production. As one of the officers was returning to his patrol car, he saw a woman running behind a house. Her clothes were in disarray, she was without shoes and appeared to be “high on something.” The officers…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. TannerOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  2. State v. BridewellOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State v. GirardOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  4. State v. EacretCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
  5. State v. RitterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  2. State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  3. State v. JangalaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998
  4. State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  5. State v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

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