Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hoefling v. Motor Vehicles Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 17, 1990No. 88-8-272; CA A50800Published

1DissentNewman, J.

The majority states:

“In any event, the hearings officer concluded that, given the requirements of the testing procedure, the officer properly declined to allow respondent’s request. Respondent did not effectively contest that conclusion other than by asserting the opposite.” 104 Or App at 16.

The hearings officer, however, made no findings of fact respecting whether the police justifiably denied respondent’s request for a confidential telephone conversation with his attorney. The hearings officer, without making the necessary findings, concluded that “to require an officer to allow a person a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. SpencerOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Shakerin v. Motor Vehicles DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  3. Gildroy v. Motor Vehicles DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  4. Luth v. Motor Vehicles DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  5. Gildroy v. Motor Vehicles DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API