Case Name: STATE OF OREGON and City of Portland, Respondents, v. EUGENE H. PEPPER, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1990-12-26
Citations: 105 Or. App. 107
Docket Number: DA 368849, M959220, M959221, M959222; CA A60761; A60762; A60763; A60764
Parties: STATE OF OREGON and City of Portland, Respondents, v. EUGENE H. PEPPER, Appellant
Judges: Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 105
Pages: 107–122

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 27,
reversed and remanded for new trial December 26, 1990
STATE OF OREGON and City of Portland, Respondents, v. EUGENE H. PEPPER, Appellant
(DA 368849, M959220, M959221, M959222; CA A60761 (Control); A60762; A60763; A60764)
(Cases Consolidated)
803 P2d 1213
Glenn N. Solomon, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Acting Public Defender, Salem.
Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Riggs, J., specially concurring.
Joseph, C. J., vice Graber, former P. J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals his convictions for various misdemeanors and traffic offenses. He claims that the trial court erred when it denied his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. The offenses took place in Oregon. He argues that the evidence, seized incident to his arrest, was the fruit of an unlawful search, because the Portland city policemen who performed the search had no authority to pursue him from Oregon into Washington and to arrest him there.
The only issue that defendant presents is the authority of the policemen to make a lawful arrest in Washington for non-felony offenses committed in Oregon. The state points to no authority for the arrest. No issue of concurrent jurisdiction is presented on these facts. See State v. Nearing, 99 Or App 724, 784 P2d 121 (1989), rev den 309 Or 698 (1990).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.