Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Gibbons

Court of Appeals of Oregon

June 3, 2015

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RYAN FRANK GIBBONS, Defendant-Appellant

Submitted April 28, 2015.

D124512T. Washington County Circuit Court. Thomas W. Kohl, Judge.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Sarah Laidlaw, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Flynn, Judge.

OPINION

[271 Or.App. 588] PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving while suspended, ORS 811.182(4), challenging the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence that the arresting police officer obtained by " running" defendant's license plate. Defendant argues that the officer violated Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution when he decided to run defendant's license plate. The trial court denied the motion on the basis of our decision in State v. Davis, 237 Or.App. 351, 239 P.3d 1002 (2010), aff'd by an equally divided court, 353 Or. 166, 295 P.3d 617 (2013), and we agree that Davis is dispositive. In Davis, we affirmed a trial court's determination that the officer's decision to run a " random" license plate check did not violate Article I, section 20, because the evidence permitted an inference that the officer's decision " was the result of a confluence of training, time, and opportunity[,]" and that " any driver" the officer encountered under similar circumstances " would have been subject to the same scrutiny." 237 Or.App. at

Page 88

360-61 (emphasis in original). The evidence here permitted the same inference, and we affirm. See also State v. Savastano, 354 Or. 64, 96, 309 P.3d 1083 (2013) (an individual-based claim under Article I, section 20, requires an initial showing that the government " 'in fact denied defendant individually *** [an] equal privilege *** with other citizens of the state similarly situated.'" (quoting State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 243, 630 P.2d 810, cert den, 454 U.S. 1084, 102 S.Ct. 640, 70 L.Ed.2d 619 (1981))).

Affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.