Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRIAN RAY SHEELY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2007-12-19
Citations: 217 Or. App. 152
Docket Number: D053273M; A131060
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRIAN RAY SHEELY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim and Sercombe, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 217
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs November 2,
reversed and remanded December 19,2007
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRIAN RAY SHEELY, Defendant-Appellant.
Washington County Circuit Court
D053273M; A131060
174 P3d 1076
Garrett A. Richardson filed the brief for appellant.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim and Sercombe, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for felon in possession of a restricted weapon, ORS 166.270(2), and assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a warrantless search of his folding pocketknife. The state concedes that, under State v. Dickerson, 135 Or App 192, 195-96, 898 P2d 193 (1995), the opening of a closed pocketknife constitutes a search under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, where nothing about the exterior of the knife indicates that the knife is not of a type that can be legally possessed. The state further concedes that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the record contains no evidence that the officer had probable cause to believe that defendant possessed a restricted weapon when the officer seized defendant's knife from the outside of his pants pocket and opened it. We agree with the state and accept its concessions.
Reversed and remanded.