State v. Arreola-Botello, 418 P.3d 785 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Arreola-Botello, 418 P.3d 785 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Arreola-Botello (or, 2019-11-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Arreola-Botello (2×)
Or. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Arreola-Botello, 292 Or App 214 , 418 P3d 785 (2018) (per curiam) (citing State v. Hampton, 247 Or App 147 , 268 P3d 711 (2011), which held that questioning about consent to search a vehicle while the driver was searching for regis- tration occurred during an “unavoidable lull” and, thus, did not extend the traffic stop in violation of Article I, section 9, protections against unreasonable seizure).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent
v.
Mario ARREOLA-BOTELLO
A161566.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
May 31, 2018.
418 P.3d 785
Joshua B. Crowther, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services., Jacob Brown, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Devore, James, Lagesen.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM

Affirmed. State v. Hampton , 247 Or. App. 147, 268 P.3d 711 (2011), rev. den. , 352 Or. 107, 284 P.3d 485 (2012) ; State v. Gomes , 236 Or. App. 364, 236 P.3d 841 (2010).