Legal Opinion
State v. Cardell
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided March 13, 2002No. 98-2706; A105750PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLinder, J.
Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010, and moved to suppress, among other things, the results of field sobriety and Breathalyzer tests that he took after the police questioned him. The trial court granted defendant’s motion, concluding that the investigating police officer’s touching of defendant’s car tires — to determine if they were hot — was an unlawful search under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, 1 and that all evidence obtained after that search should be suppressed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Alderman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Nardone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Ball v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- State v. EhretCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- United States v. HolmesDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2015
- State v. DoyleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- State v. OlingerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
- State v. MituniewiczCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.