State v. STOKKE
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, P. J.
This case is before us on remand after the Supreme Court vacated our previous opinion in light of State v. Luman, 347 Or 487, 223 P3d 1041 (2009). State v. Stokke, 348 Or 114, 228 P3d 1213 (2010). In our original opinion, we reversed and remanded defendant’s convictions, concluding that the trial court had erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in a safe that defendant had left in a hotel room past the checkout time. State v. Stokke, 231 Or App 387, 220 P3d 59 (2009). On remand, in light of Luman, we now affirm.
The relevant facts are outlined in our original opinion.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. LumanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
- State v. LumanOregon Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. StokkeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
- State v. StokkeOregon Supreme Court · 2010
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. GattoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
- State v. STOKKECourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010