From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Langevin

Oregon Court of Appeals
Mar 26, 1986
715 P.2d 1355 (Or. Ct. App. 1986)

Summary

In Langevin, the court had relied on its previous interpretation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution in State v. Westlund, 75 Or. App. 43, 705 P.2d 208 (1985).

Summary of this case from State v. Milligan

Opinion

146,798; CA A36402

Argued and submitted January 27, 1986.

Reversed and remanded for new trial March 26, 1986. Reconsideration denied May 9, petition for review pending 1986.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County, Rodney W. Miller, Judge.

Paul J. DeMuniz, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Robert R. Trethewy and Garrett, Seideman, Hemann, Robertson DeMuniz, P.C., Salem.

Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded for new trial.


Defendant appeals his conviction for criminally negligent homicide, contending that the police did not have authority to draw blood from him while he was unconscious, and that, if they did have such authority, they were required to obtain a warrant before analyzing his blood several days later for alcohol content.

We hold that the police did have the authority to take a sample of defendant's blood. Former ORS 487.835(2); State v. Heintz, 286 Or. 239, 594 P.2d 385 (1979); State v. Calderon, 67 Or. App. 169, 678 P.2d 1245, rev den 297 Or. 272 (1984). That statute also authorized the testing of the blood sample. However, under the Oregon Constitution, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the officers did not have authority to test it for its alcohol content without a warrant, because they had ample time within which to obtain one. State v. Lowry, 295 Or. 337, 667 P.2d 996 (1983); State v. Westlund, 75 Or. App. 43, 705 P.2d 208, rev allowed 300 Or. 332 (1985).

ORS 487.835(2) was amended by Or Laws 1985, ch 16, § 299, and, as amended, codified as ORS 813.140.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.


Summaries of

State v. Langevin

Oregon Court of Appeals
Mar 26, 1986
715 P.2d 1355 (Or. Ct. App. 1986)

In Langevin, the court had relied on its previous interpretation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution in State v. Westlund, 75 Or. App. 43, 705 P.2d 208 (1985).

Summary of this case from State v. Milligan
Case details for

State v. Langevin

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL CRAIG LANGEVIN, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Mar 26, 1986

Citations

715 P.2d 1355 (Or. Ct. App. 1986)
715 P.2d 1355

Citing Cases

State v. Milligan

Reversed and remanded for new trial. State v. Langevin, 78 Or. App. 311, 715 P.2d 1355 (1986). Van…

State v. Langevin

On review from the Court of Appeals. Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County, Honorable Rodney W. Miller,…