Case Name: CITY OF SALEM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAUREL GUILLEN, Defendant-Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2009-12-30
Citations: 233 Or. App. 133
Docket Number: 07C40078; A136956
Parties: CITY OF SALEM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAUREL GUILLEN, Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman, Judge, and Ortega, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 233
Pages: 133–134

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted October 27,
affirmed December 30, 2009
CITY OF SALEM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAUREL GUILLEN, Defendant-Respondent.
Marion County Circuit Court
07C40078; A136956
227 P3d 171
Sean T. Brady, Assistant City Attorney, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
Kevin T. Lafky argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Leslie D. Gomez.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman, Judge, and Ortega, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted in Salem Municipal Court of one count of prohibited touching. Salem Revised Code (SRC) 96.300(a). She appealed to Marion County Circuit Court for trial de novo, as authorized by ORS 221.359 and ORS 221.360, and moved to dismiss the charges on the ground (among others) that the code provision violates Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, the state's free expression guarantee. The court agreed and dismissed the charges. The city appeals.
City of Salem v. Lawrow, 233 Or App 32, 225 P3d 51 (2009), is identical to this case except for the identity of the defendant. In Lawrow, we held that SRC 96.300(a) violated Article I, section 8. That decision controls here.
Affirmed.