Legal Opinion
State v. RY
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided March 14, 2007No. 04CR1206FB, A126045 (Control), 04CR1206FA, A126633PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, P. J.
Defendants, a driver (Guinto) and his passenger (Ry), appeal their convictions for delivery of a controlled substance, former ORS 475.992 (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.840 (2005), challenging the trial court’s denial of their motions to suppress evidence discovered during a search following a traffic stop. Or Const, Art I, § 9; US Const, Amend IV. They contend that the search was unlawful because the predicate consent to search was not voluntary. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we are bound by the trial court’s findings of historical…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. StevensOregon Supreme Court · 1991
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. BergCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
- State v. DunlapCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
- State v. JepsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
- State v. MarshallCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
- State v. BriggsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.