Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

State v. Uroza-Zuniga

Court of Appeals of Oregon

August 2, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
VICTOR UROZA-ZUNIGA, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted April 5, 2017, Tillamook High School, Tillamook.

         Washington County Circuit Court C141815CR; Rick Knapp, Judge.

          Anna E. Melichar, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Jamie Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Cecil A. Reniche-Smith, Assistant Attorney General.

          Maja K. Haium and Sean O'Day fled the brief amicus curiae for City of Beaverton and League of Oregon Cities.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Wilson, Senior Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. On appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence that police off-cers obtained when they arrested defendant for drinking alcohol in a public place, in violation of Beaverton City Code ordinance (BCC) 5.02.083. Defendant contends that the arrest was unlawful because BCC 5.02.083 is preempted by state law, ORS 430.402. Alternatively, defendant argues that the city may not establish a criminal penalty for violation of BCC 5.02.083 because it imposes a greater punishment than does ORS 811.170, Oregon's "open container" law, for what defendant contends is substantially similar conduct.

         Held:

         The trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to suppress. First, BCC 5.02.083 does not confict with [287 Or.App. 215] ORS 430.402 in a way that preempts BCC 5.02.083 so as to make it unconstitutional under Article XI, section 2, of the Oregon Constitution. Second, the conduct regulated in ORS 811.170 and BCC 5.02.083 is not similar in nature because it is different both in specifcs and in essence. Accordingly, the maximum punishment for a violation of ORS 811.170 does not control the permissible maximum punishment for a violation of BCC 5.02.083.

         Affirmed.

         [287 Or.App. 216] WILSON, S. J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. He raises a single assignment of error on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence that police officers obtained following defendant's arrest for violating a Beaverton city ordinance that prohibits drinking alcohol in a "public place, " as defined in Beaverton City Code (BCC) 5.02.083. Defendant asserts that his arrest, and the subsequent inventory of his wallet, was unlawful because state law-specifically ORS 430.402-preempts BCC 5.02.083. Therefore, according to defendant, the Oregon Constitution requires suppression of any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest. In the alternative, defendant argues that the city may not establish a criminal penalty for a violation of that ordinance because BCC 5.02.083 imposes a greater punishment than the state imposes for substantially similar conduct under Oregon's "open container" law, ORS 811.170. In response, the state contends that ORS 430.402 specifically permits the type of ordinance that the city adopted. Further, the state argues that ORS 811.170 and BCC 5.02.083 are different in specifics and in essence. We agree with the state and, accordingly, affirm.

         FACTS

         We state the facts consistently with the trial court's explicit and implicit factual findings, which the record supports. See State v. Suppah. 358 Or. 565, 567 n 1, 369 P.3d 1108 (2016) (applying that standard in reviewing denial of suppression motion). On August 6, 2014, Beaverton police officer Coplin responded to a Plaid Pantry store to investigate a report of people drinking in the parking lot. Upon arriving, Coplin saw three men standing around a car and a van drinking beer. As he approached the men, Coplin saw defendant place a bottle of beer inside the van. A second officer arrived as backup, and Coplin received consent from the men to search the vehicles and found four open beer bottles. Coplin placed all three men under arrest for violating BCC 5.02.083(A), which prohibits consumption of alcohol in public places, and states, in relevant part,

[287 Or.App. 217] "No person shall consume alcoholic liquor or possess an open container of an alcoholic beverage while in or upon any public place, unless authorized by the [Oregon Liquor Control] Commission or by subsection B of this section."

         An inventory of defendant's wallet at the Beaverton police station revealed methamphetamine.

         The state charged defendant by information with unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. Defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence, pursuant to Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, on the grounds that his arrest was unlawful and that the evidence derived from his illegal seizure must be suppressed.[1]In his motion, defendant argued that BCC 5.02.083, which provided probable cause for his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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