Legal Opinion

State v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 14, 2011No. 091131; A145081PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, P. J.

The state appeals an order suppressing evidence resulting from the warrantless testing of defendant’s blood and urine. ORS 138.060(l)(c). The trial court, consistently with the reasoning in our decision in State v. Machuca, 231 Or App 232, 218 P3d 145 (2009) (Machuca I), rev’d on other grounds, 347 Or 644, 227 P3d 729 (2010) (Machuca II), concluded that defendant’s consent to that testing was involuntary because it was obtained after he had received statutory implied consent warnings about the economic harm and loss of privileges that would result if he refused. On appeal, the state…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. StevensOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State v. NewtonOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  3. State v. SpencerOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon v. MowryOregon Supreme Court · 2011
  5. State v. PaulsonOregon Supreme Court · 1992

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. CivilCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  2. State v. MooreOregon Supreme Court · 2013
  3. State v. MooreOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  4. State v. McMullenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
  5. State v. RaymondCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015

5 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