Legal Opinion

State v. Kimmel

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 19, 1986No. C84-08-33493; CA A34546PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for driving while suspended. Former ORS 487.560 (now ORS 811.175). He assigns as error the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop of his vehicle. The ground for the motion was that there were insufficient facts to justify the stop. We reverse.

Officer Luher testified for the state at the suppression hearing. At about 6 p.m. on August 12, 1984, he was driving north on northeast Cully, near its intersection with northeast Prescott, when he observed defendant’s vehicle ahead in the outside lane. Luher was in the inside lane and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. ValdezOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  2. State v. ChambersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  3. State v. RatliffCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  4. State v. HagemanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. RatliffCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  2. State v. CordrayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  3. State v. EisenbarthCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  4. State v. GuerricagoitiaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  5. State v. LumsdenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988

4 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