Legal Opinion

State v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 19, 2012No. C100064CR; A145643PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, P. J.

After the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence — drugs that a police officer found in defendant’s purse and incriminating statements that she made thereafter — defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine. ORS 475.894. On appeal, she argues that, although she consented to the search that led to the discovery of the drugs and the subsequent statements, the consent occurred during an unlawful stop. The state maintains that the consent occurred during an encounter that was not a stop, but mere conversation and, for that reason, the encounter did not violate…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  2. State v. HolmesOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. AshbaughOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  4. State v. PainterOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State v. RadtkeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  2. State v. DierksCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API