State v. Wright
| Decision Date | 10 February 1989 |
| Citation | 94 Or.App. 468,765 P.2d 1251 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Mary May WRIGHT, Respondent. 87-61481; CA A47700. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Jonathan H. Fussner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Douglas R. Wilkinson, Springfield, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Thorp, Dennett, Purdy, Golden & Jewett, P.C., Springfield.
Before RICHARDSON, P.J., JOSEPH, C.J., and DEITS, J.
The state appeals a pretrial order suppressing evidence obtained after defendant's vehicle was stopped. The court concluded that the officer's observations of defendant's driving did not support a reasonable suspicion that she was driving under the influence of intoxicants and that, consequently, the stop was unlawful. We reverse.
There is no dispute about the evidence. The trial court accepted the testimony of the arresting officer who was the only witness to testify during the hearing on the motion to suppress. Although the court orally discussed the evidence and its ruling, it did not make specific findings of fact. The order allowing defendant's motion stated only "that the officer lacked a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity on which to base a stop of the defendant."
The northbound lane in which defendant was traveling gradually widens into two lanes, with the right lane being a turn lane. Defendant's vehicle made a "very quick motion" into the right lane, even though it gradually widened. The officer stopped defendant and subsequently arrested her.
The question is whether the facts that the officer observed supported a reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicants. See ORS 131.605(4). The trial court, in its oral discourse, mentioned State v. Bailey, 51 Or.App. 173, 624 P.2d 663, rev. den. 291 Or. 1, 631 P.2d 340 (1981), and State v. Perry, 39 Or.App. 37, 591 P.2d 379 (1979). It noted that those cases involved a driver weaving and expressed concern that the appellate courts had not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Shupe
...five times at 3:44 a.m. had reasonable suspicion to stop driver for driving under the influence of intoxicants); State v. Wright, 94 Or.App. 468, 470–71, 765 P.2d 1251 (1988), rev. den., 307 Or. 514, 770 P.2d 595 (1989) (concluding that officer had reasonable suspicion that driver was drivi......
-
State v. Ehret
...his ability to operate a motor vehicle as the result of the ingestion of controlled substances. ORS 813.010(1); State v. Wright, 94 Or.App. 468, 470-71, 765 P.2d 1251 (1988),rev. den., 307 Or. 514, 770 P.2d 595 (1989). Seber's observations that defendant had red, watery eyes and was sweatin......
-
Hause v. Motor Vehicles Div., CV-0591
...driving can form a reasonable suspicion that someone is committing a crime such as driving under the influence. State v. Wright, 94 Or.App. 468, 471, 765 P.2d 1251 (1988), rev. den. 307 Or. 514, 770 P.2d 595 (1989). Here, the sergeant's observations justified the stop. Petitioner argues in ......
-
State v. Sulser
...a reasonable suspicion that he or she is impaired. "Indications that a driver is impaired may come in many ways." State v. Wright, 94 Or.App. 468, 471, 765 P.2d 1251 (1988), rev. den. 307 Or. 514, 770 P.2d 595 (1989). In Wright, we held that an officer's observation of a vehicle that jerked......
-
Search and seizure
...and hit another car. The court held that, under these facts, the o൶cer’s suspicion was objectively reasonable. State v. Wright (1988) 94 Or.App. 468, 765 P.2d 1251. The o൶cer made a U-turn on a two lane highway to follow defendant. The o൶cer testiied that the vehicle was jerking back and ......