Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State v. Graves
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided April 10, 1985No. C82-08-36785, C83-03-31357, C82-08-36786 CA A27008 (Control), CA A28773, CA A28698Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partButtler, J.
Although I concur in the majority’s disposition of defendant’s first conviction (CA A27008), I disagree with its affirmance of his second conviction (CA A28773) and therefore dissent from the disposition of that case.
The appeal from the second conviction calls upon us to determine the permissible scope and intensity of a “frisk” of a person following a stop pursuant to ORS 131.615.1 Under that statute, the officers were entitled to stop defendant for a reasonable time and to make reasonable inquiry regarding the immediate circumstances that aroused their suspicion. Under ORS 131.625(1), they…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- State v. FloresCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
- State v. KirschCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
- State v. RidderbushCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
- New Jersey v. New York, Susquehanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.