City of Roseburg v. Dykstra
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the Court
*319EDMONDS, J.
Defendant appeals from a conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants.1 ORS 813.010. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the Intoxilyzer test result. We affirm.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, counsel for the parties stipulated that the only facts relevant to the motion were that defendant was afforded an opportunity to consult with counsel before taking the test, but that counsel was not allowed to be present while the test was being performed. No witnesses or other evidence were adduced. Based on the stipulated facts,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Gilbert v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. AshSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- State v. NewtonOregon Supreme Court · 1981
- State v. SpencerOregon Supreme Court · 1988
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- City of Roseburg v. DykstraCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1993
- State of Iowa v. Matthew Robert SewellSupreme Court of Iowa · 2021
- State of Iowa v. Matthew Robert SewellSupreme Court of Iowa · 2021