Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Roseburg v. Dykstra

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 23, 1993No. 91CRO320MI; CA A73494Published

1DissentWarren, J.

Because I believe our precedents compel the conclusion that defendant was entitled to have counsel present at the breath test under the facts of this case, I dissent.

After arresting defendant for driving under the influence of intoxicants, a City of Roseburg (City) police officer transported him to the Douglas County Corrections facility for a breath test. While there, defendant called a lawyer, who arrived at the facility within a short time. After consulting with his lawyer, defendant consented to take the test.1 Although he requested that his counsel be present during the test, the officer…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State v. SpencerOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State v. SparklinOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  3. State v. TrenaryOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Moore v. STATE, MOTOR VEHICLES DIV., ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1982
  5. State Ex Rel. Russell v. JonesOregon Supreme Court · 1982

9 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