results of a breath test in Oregon

1981State v. Fogle, supra, 254 Or 268 .

1980In that case this court held (at page 275, 459 P.2d 873 ) that the results of a breath test were inadmissible in a negligent homicide case arising out of an automobile accident because the state had not properly tested the equipment, as required by statute.

2026The state does not challenge that ruling on appeal. 184 State v. Moran v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716 , 277 P3d 535 (2012) (explain- ing that the remedy for an Article I, section 12, violation “extends not only to a defendant’s unwarned responses to an officer’s questions but also to * * * evidence that is the prod- uct of that violation”); State v. Swan, 363 Or 121, 133 , 420 P3d 9 (2018) (noting that the state bears the burden of show- ing that a defendant’s decision to take a breath test was not derived from the officer’s earlier violation of the defendant’s Article I, section 12, rights).

2026The state does not challenge that ruling on appeal. 184 State v. Moran v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716 , 277 P3d 535 (2012) (explain- ing that the remedy for an Article I, section 12, violation “extends not only to a defendant’s unwarned responses to an officer’s questions but also to * * * evidence that is the prod- uct of that violation”); State v. Swan, 363 Or 121, 133 , 420 P3d 9 (2018) (noting that the state bears the burden of show- ing that a defendant’s decision to take a breath test was not derived from the officer’s earlier violation of the defendant’s Article I, section 12, rights).

2026The state does not challenge that ruling on appeal. 184 State v. Moran v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716 , 277 P3d 535 (2012) (explain- ing that the remedy for an Article I, section 12, violation “extends not only to a defendant’s unwarned responses to an officer’s questions but also to * * * evidence that is the prod- uct of that violation”); State v. Swan, 363 Or 121, 133 , 420 P3d 9 (2018) (noting that the state bears the burden of show- ing that a defendant’s decision to take a breath test was not derived from the officer’s earlier violation of the defendant’s Article I, section 12, rights).

2026The state does not challenge that ruling on appeal. 184 State v. Moran v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716 , 277 P3d 535 (2012) (explain- ing that the remedy for an Article I, section 12, violation “extends not only to a defendant’s unwarned responses to an officer’s questions but also to * * * evidence that is the prod- uct of that violation”); State v. Swan, 363 Or 121, 133 , 420 P3d 9 (2018) (noting that the state bears the burden of show- ing that a defendant’s decision to take a breath test was not derived from the officer’s earlier violation of the defendant’s Article I, section 12, rights).

2018State v. Fish , 321 Or. 48 , 62, 893 P.2d 1023 (1995).

2018State v. Fish , 321 Or. 48 , 62, 893 P.2d 1023 (1995).

2017A breath test yields only “physical evidence of intoxication,” which is not testimonial, because it conveys nothing about the person’s “beliefs, knowledge, or state of mind.” State v. Nielsen, 147 Or App 294, 304 , 936 P2d 374 , rev den, 326 Or 68 (1997).

2017A breath test yields only “physical evidence of intoxication,” which is not testimonial, because it conveys nothing about the person’s “beliefs, knowledge, or state of mind.” State v. Nielsen, 147 Or App 294, 304 , 936 P2d 374 , rev den, 326 Or 68 (1997).

2009A urine test may be requested under this paragraph regardless of whether a breath test has been requested and regardless of the results of a breath test, if one is taken. “(2) A police officer may not request a urine test unless the officer is certified by the Board on Public Safety Standards and Training as having *498 completed at least eight hours of training in recognition of drug impaired driving and the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has been driving while under the influence of a controlled substance, an inhalant or any combination of an inhalant, a controlled

2008In State v. Chambers, 147 Or App 626 , 938 P2d 793 (1997), rev *503 den, 327 Or 82 (1998), the defendant, in a prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicants, assigned error to the trial court’s failure to suppress the results of a breath test and an incriminating statement.

2008In State v. Chambers, 147 Or App 626 , 938 P2d 793 (1997), rev *503 den, 327 Or 82 (1998), the defendant, in a prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicants, assigned error to the trial court’s failure to suppress the results of a breath test and an incriminating statement.

1996We review for errors of law, State v. Lambert, 134 Or App 148 , 894 P2d 1189 (1995), and reverse.

1996We review for errors of law, State v. Lambert, 134 Or App 148 , 894 P2d 1189 (1995), and reverse.

1988Taking that view one step further, the dissent noted: "[I]t does not appear reasonable to conclude that when the legislature expressly provides that the effect of an officer's failing to advise a person of his or her choices and their consequences is to prohibit the state from suspending his or her license, the legislature, nevertheless, intended that if one is prevented from obtaining a lawyer's advice the test results must be excluded from evidence." State v. Scharf, supra, 288 Or. at 465-66 , 605 P.2d. 690 . *151 Less than two years later, the court overruled the specific holding in Scharf

1988Taking that view one step further, the dissent noted: "[I]t does not appear reasonable to conclude that when the legislature expressly provides that the effect of an officer's failing to advise a person of his or her choices and their consequences is to prohibit the state from suspending his or her license, the legislature, nevertheless, intended that if one is prevented from obtaining a lawyer's advice the test results must be excluded from evidence." State v. Scharf, supra, 288 Or. at 465-66 , 605 P.2d. 690 . *151 Less than two years later, the court overruled the specific holding in Scharf