Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ZACH DAVID SAFFRAN, true name Zachary David Saffran, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2007-11-28
Citations: 216 Or. App. 316
Docket Number: C042288CR; A128234
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ZACH DAVID SAFFRAN, true name Zachary David Saffran, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman and Ortega, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 216
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs October 5,
reversed and remanded November 28, 2007
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ZACH DAVID SAFFRAN, true name Zachary David Saffran, Defendant-Appellant.
Washington County Circuit Court
C042288CR; A128234
172 P3d 283
David J. Celuch filed the brief for appellant.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman and Ortega, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance, former ORS 475.992(4)(a) (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.840(3)(a) (2005), as the result of evidence found during a traffic stop. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the police officers lacked authority to stop him because they did not see him commit a traffic violation. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, defendant assigns error to the denial of the suppression motion. The state concedes that the trial court erred in denying the suppression motion because the officers did not observe a traffic violation as required under ORS 810.410(2)(a). As a result, the state agrees, the stop was unlawful, and the evidence obtained as a result of the stop should have been suppressed. We agree with the parties that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.
Reversed and remanded.