State v. Cooper
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRossman, J.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant raised, preserved and correctly assigned as error the issue of whether or not Officer Brooks was an “officer or employee” of the state. Even if I agreed with the majority on this threshold matter, however, I cannot accept the majority’s holding that, as a matter of law, a city police officer cannot be designated as an “officer or employee” of the state, because that holding completely ignores the purpose of the rule. For these reasons, I must dissent.
The majority disposes of this case on the issue of whether a city police officer may be…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. CarterUtah Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. HitzOregon Supreme Court · 1988
- Shields v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1977
- State v. WederskiOregon Supreme Court · 1962
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.