State v. Dill

DURHAM, J. pro tempore,

dissenting.

I agree with the majority that the critical inquiry in this case is whether defendant “reasonably could have believed that the question asked was part of a field sobriety test.” 127 Or App at 11.1 would affirm the trial court, because the record amply supports the trial court’s determination that defendant reasonably could have believed that his refusal to answer the questions would be a refusal to submit to part of a field sobriety test.

ORS 801.272 defines “field sobriety test” as

“a physical or mental test, approved by the Department of State Police by rule…