stating that even if a Supreme Court decision “were both an innovation in Oregon law and completely indefensible analytically, we would be bound to follow it * * * because the decision is a binding precedent of a superior court”
How later courts described this case
- stating that even if a Supreme Court decision “were both an innovation in Oregon law and completely indefensible analytically, we would be bound to follow it * * * because the decision is a binding precedent of a superior court”
- police officer, observing the defendant to be drunk, may have violated statute mandating taking him into protective custody when he let him drive, but this failure does not bar the State from prosecuting the defendant for driving under the influence of intoxicants
- same with respect to police officer’s belief that a vial contained a controlled substance
- probable cause to search where officer, from training and experience, believed it highly likely, but not certain, that white powder visible in transparent vial was controlled substance
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LENT and LINDE, JJ.,
dissenting.
We dissent for the reasons expressed in our dissenting opinion in State v. Owens, 302 Or 196 , 729 P2d 524 (1986).