Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Garza

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 21, 1990No. T104939; CA A61786Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJoseph, C. J.

I concur with the result, but not particularly with the reasoning, in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. I dissent in respect to denial of the motion for acquittal.

Officer Shroder asked defendant to get out of the car. Without informing defendant that he intended to issue a citation, Shroder asked for his name and identification. Defendant gave Shroder a false name. It is unclear from the Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint issued in this case whether defendant is charged with violating ORS 162.385 (giving false information to a police officer for a citation), ORS 807.620 (giving…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API