Legal Opinion

State v. MacHuca

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 30, 2009No. 050647097; A133362PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*234SERCOMBE, J.

After a conditional guilty plea, defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). ORS 813.010. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of his blood alcohol content obtained after he consented to a blood draw. Defendant argues that the blood draw was obtained in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.1 For the reasons explained below, we reverse and remand.

We review the denial of a motion to suppress for errors of law and are bound by the trial court’s factual findings that are supported by…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  4. State v. StevensOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  5. State v. NewtonOregon Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. State v. MacHucaOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  2. State v. MooreOregon Supreme Court · 2013
  3. State v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  4. State v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  5. State v. Martinez-AlvarezCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011

23 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