State v. Williams

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Bradley

    329 Or. App. 736 (Or. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    We have generally held that it is permissible for an officer conducting a DUII investigation to inquire as to whether a defendant has any alcohol or controlled substances in the vehicle. See State v. Williams, 297 Or.App. 384, 387-88, 441 P.3d 242, rev den, 365 Or. 658 (2019) (holding that such questions are reasonably related to the purpose of a DUII stop). Further, where an officer subjectively perceives danger from the circumstances related to a roadside DUII investigation, an officer's inquiry as to whether a defendant has a firearm can be reasonably related to the purpose of that investigation.

  2. State v. Gomez

    323 Or. App. 302 (Or. Ct. App. 2022)

    A driver's possession of alcohol or controlled substances "certainly can be relevant evidence to prove" that a driver has committed the crime of DUII. State v. Williams, 297 Or.App. 384, 388, 441 P.3d 242 (2019).

  3. State v. Morris

    320 Or. App. 174 (Or. Ct. App. 2022)

    We are bound by the trial court's findings of fact that are supported by the record. State v. Williams , 297 Or. App. 384, 385, 441 P.3d 242 (2019). In the absence of express findings, we presume that the trial court made findings consistent with the ultimate conclusion.

  4. State v. McCall

    315 Or. App. 538 (Or. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    We are bound by the court's findings of fact that are supported by the record; if the court did not make an express finding, we will assume "the court decided the facts in a manner consistent with its ultimate conclusion." State v. Williams , 297 Or. App. 384, 385, 441 P.3d 242 (2019). We recite the relevant facts in accordance with that standard.