Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DANIEL RAY SCHAUSS, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1990-03-28
Citations: 101 Or. App. 116
Docket Number: C88-02-32179; CA A51044
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DANIEL RAY SCHAUSS, Appellant.
Judges: Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 101
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs November 27, 1989,
reversed and remanded for new trial March 28, 1990
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DANIEL RAY SCHAUSS, Appellant.
(C88-02-32179; CA A51044)
788 P2d 1035
Sally L. Avera, Acting Public Defender, and Peter Gartlan, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.
Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Katherine H. Waldo, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this case tried to a jury, the state concedes that, under State v. Crawford, 91 Or App 597, 756 P2d 68 (1988), the record contains insufficient facts to establish that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant. We agree that the motion to suppress should have been granted.
Because the issue is likely to arise on retrial, we also address defendant's other assignment of error. He argues that the trial court should have suppressed an eyewitness's identification, because the "photo throwdown" was unduly suggestive. We do not agree that the procedure followed was improper.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.