Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL SEAMON FURNEY, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1984-05-16
Citations: 68 Or. App. 379
Docket Number: M-340289; CA A30250
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL SEAMON FURNEY, Appellant.
Judges: Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 68
Pages: 379–380

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted April 23,
reversed and remanded May 16, 1984
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MICHAEL SEAMON FURNEY, Appellant.
(M-340289; CA A30250)
681 P2d 177
Brian P. Conry, Hillsboro, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Brenda J. Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
This is a criminal case in which defendant was convicted of driving while suspended. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a police stop of his car, on the ground that the officer had no legally sufficient basis for the stop. Recitation of the facts would benefit neither bench nor bar. It is sufficient to say that, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the officer did not have sufficient justification to stop defendant's car.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.