Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT ELWOOD BURDICK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2007-03-14
Citations: 211 Or. App. 388
Docket Number: 03FE1195ST; A127446
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT ELWOOD BURDICK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Rosenblum, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 211
Pages: 388–389

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs February 2,
reversed and remanded March 14, 2007
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT ELWOOD BURDICK, Defendant-Appellant.
Deschutes County Circuit Court
03FE1195ST; A127446
154 P3d 173
Peter A. Ozanne, Executive Director, Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Legal Services Division, and Ernest G. Lannet, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Christina M. Hutchins, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Rosenblum, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance, former ORS 475.992(4)(b) (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.840 (2005), and entered a conditional plea of guilty after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, because the evidence was found after defendant consented to a search of his car at a time when he had been stopped without reasonable suspicion. The state concedes that, under State v. Hall, 339 Or 7, 115 P3d 908 (2005), the evidence should have been suppressed. We accept the state's concession as well-founded.
Reversed and remanded.