State v. Pamperien
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1ConcurrenceLandau, J.
Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that Tribal Officer Pritchard could not lawfully stop him because ORS 810.410 does not confer such authority on tribal officers. The majority declines to address that state statutory argument and instead disposes of the appeal on federal constitutional grounds not argued by defendant or the state. That method of analysis is contrary to well-settled principles that require a “first things first” approach: first statutory arguments, then constitutional ones, State v. Moylett, 313 Or 540, 545, 836 P2d 1329 (1992) (“All issues should first be addressed on a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. KennedyOregon Supreme Court · 1983
- Stull v. HokeOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. MoylettOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. HaynesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- Pilgrim v. Clatskanie People's Utility DistrictCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997