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