State v. Soldahl
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLeeson, J.
In this criminal proceeding, the issue is whether the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after a police officer stopped defendant’s car. The trial court held that, because the officer who stopped defendant lacked probable cause to believe that defendant was committing a traffic infraction, the evidence must be suppressed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Soldahl, 157 Or App 578, 972 P2d 898 (1998). We allowed.the state’s petition for review. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, reverse the order of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. OwensOregon Supreme Court · 1986
- State v. GrodaOregon Supreme Court · 1979
- State v. PrattOregon Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. BeltOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. MatthewsOregon Supreme Court · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- United States v. RamirezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- State v. HoldorfOregon Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. FosterOregon Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. BarberMarion County Circuit Court, Oregon · 2016
- State v. RussumCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.