Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. SHERRONK. SLINGLUFF, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2006-07-05
Citations: 206 Or. App. 709
Docket Number: 03-1219; A126764
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. SHERRONK. SLINGLUFF, Appellant.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Rosenblum, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 206
Pages: 709–710

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs June 2,
reversed and remanded for new trial July 5, 2006
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. SHERRONK. SLINGLUFF, Appellant.
03-1219; A126764
138 P3d 899
Peter Ozanne, Executive Director, Peter Gartlan, Chief Deputy, Legal Services Division, and Shawn Wiley, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Seann C. Colgan, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Rosenblum, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals her conviction for possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992 (2003), arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence. She argues that she was unlawfully stopped when a police officer obtained her identification, performed a records check, had her empty her pockets, questioned her, and eventually sought and received consent to search her vehicle. The state concedes that the facts of this case are not materially distinguishable from those in State v. Hall, 339 Or 7, 115 P3d 908 (2005), and, based on that case, concedes that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress. We agree that the present case is not materially distinguishable from Hall and therefore accept the state's concession.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.