Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Cadmus

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 12, 1983No. 1970; A25732Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partNewman, J.

I concur that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements to the police. I believe, however, contrary to the majority, that the court also erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of his refusal to take a breath test.

The majority relies on State v. Newton, 291 Or 788, 636 P2d 393 (1981). There the court held that the results of a breath test were admissible, even though the defendant was denied the right to call his lawyer before he took the test. The court first held that the denial of the telephone call denied the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. NewtonOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Moore v. STATE, MOTOR VEHICLES DIV., ETC.Oregon Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Chase v. Motor Vehicles DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API