Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

STATE v. SCHMITZ, 55 Or. App. 1028 (1982)

STATE OF Or., Appellant, v. JAMES N. SCHMITZ, Respondent., 639 P.2d 1317 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)

Type: Opinion
Court: Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction: Orlaw
Date: 1982-02-08
Topic: general

STATE v. SCHMITZ, 55 Or. App. 1028 (1982) 639 P.2d 1317 STATE OF OREGON, Appellant, v. JAMES N. SCHMITZ, Respondent.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. SCHMITZ, 55 Or. App. 1028 (1982). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE v. SCHMITZ,55 Or. App. 1028(1982)

639 P.2d 1317

STATE OF OREGON,Appellant,v. JAMES N. SCHMITZ,Respondent.

No. 81-28 and 81-29, CA A21890

Oregon Court of Appeals.

Argued and submitted January 15, 1982.

Reversed and remanded for trial February 8, 1982.

Appeal from District Court, Columbia County.

Berkeley A. Smith, Judge.

Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and William F. Gary, Solicitor General, Salem.

Gregory J. Leineweber, St. Helens, waived appearance for respondent.

Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Roberts and Young, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded for trial.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court's determination that there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search in this case was erroneous. Reversed and remanded for trial.Page 1029