Legal Opinion

State v. Riegelmann

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 2, 1982No. C80-10-33535, CA A20182 (control), No. C80-11-33990, CA A20183Published

1Per curiam

Defendant appeals from a trial court order denying his motion to suppress evidence. He alleges error in the trial court’s denial of a right to present oral argument on the motion. That was not error. See State v. Gholston, 55 Or App 790, 639 P2d 1302 (1981). A second search was with defendant’s voluntary consent and it was not tainted by any preceding illegality. State v. Quinn, 290 Or 383, 623 P2d 630 (1981).

Affirmed.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. QuinnOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State v. GholstonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982