State v. Gilmour
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentLeeson, J.
I would affirm the trial court. The state argued that “the most important factor” supporting probable cause to arrest in this case was defendant’s refusal to submit to field sobriety tests. As the majority correctly observes, that reliance is misplaced in the light of State v. Nagel, 320 Or 24, 880 P2d 451 (1994). The remaining question is whether the other facts found by the trial court are sufficient to constitute probable cause for arresting defendant for DUII. 136 Or App at 299.1 believe those facts rise only to the level of a reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving under the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. NagelOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. MoylettOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- Oregon v. NilesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
- State v. ReddishCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- Howder v. State Department of Transportation Motor Vehicles DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1975
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.