Opinion

Noble v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision

  • 145 Or. App. 256
  • 326 Or. 43
  • 927 P.2d 1120
  • 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1853
  • 1996 WL 718136
Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Filed
Dec 11, 1996
Status
Published
On the bench
Deits, Hasel, Muniz, Ton
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 73.6%

court properly admitted evidence that, based on observing officer’s training, field sobriety tests “were administered in accordance with protocols”

How later courts described this case

  • court properly admitted evidence that, based on observing officer’s training, field sobriety tests “were administered in accordance with protocols”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision establishing conditions of parole, including declarations that petitioner is a high risk dangerous offender and a predatory sex offender. ORS 181.585 to ORS 181.589.

Petitioner’s arguments are resolved contrary to his position by our decisions in Schuch v. Board of Parole, 139 Or App 327 , 912 P2d 403 , rev den 324 Or 78 (1996), Gress v. Board of Parole, 143 Or App 7 , 924 P2d 329 , on recons 144 Or App 375 , 927 P2d 138 (1996), and Coleman v. Board of Parole, 144 Or App 487 , 927 P2d 622 (1996).

Affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.