Legal Opinion

State v. McMullen

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 31, 2012No. D092959T; A144727PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, P. J.

In this driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) case, the state appeals a pretrial order suppressing the results of a urine test, obtained without a warrant, disclosing that defendant had ingested a variety of controlled substances. See ORS 138.060(l)(c) (state may appeal pretrial order suppressing evidence). The state argued that the evidence was admissible despite the absence of a warrant for three reasons: because defendant consented to the test, because exigent circumstances made obtaining a warrant impracticable, and because the test occurred incident to a lawful arrest. The…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. JuryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  2. State v. MacHucaOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. MacHucaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  4. State v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. SullivanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  2. State v. MazzolaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  3. State v. RaymondCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  4. State v. FullerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  5. State v. DeatleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021

2 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