State v. Uroza-Zuniga

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 08-02-2017
  • Case #: A159939
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Wilson, S.J. for the Court, Armstrong, P.J.; & Shorr, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under Article XI, section 2, of the Oregon Constitution, Oregon’s municipalities may not enact ordinances that “conflict” with state laws. City of Portland v. Jackson, 316 Or 143, 146 (1993).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained following his arrest for violating a Beaverton city ordinance prohibiting drinking alcohol in a “public place,” as defined in Beaverton City Code (BCC) 5.02.083. On appeal, Defendant argued that his arrest, and the subsequent inventory of his wallet, was unlawful because state law—specifically ORS 430.402—preempted BCC 5.02.083. In response, the State contended that the City’s ordinance and the State’s “open container” law (ORS 811.170) were different in specifics and in essence. Under Article XI, section 2, of the Oregon Constitution, Oregon’s municipalities may not enact ordinances that “conflict” with state laws. City of Portland v. Jackson, 316 Or 143, 146 (1993). “An ordinance ‘conflicts’ with a state statute if the ordinance prohibits conduct that the statute permits, or vice versa.” State v. Krueger, 208 Or App 166, 169 (2006). The Court of Appeals determined the City’s ordinance (BCC 5.02.083) and the State’s “open container” law (ORS 811.170) were different in specifics and in essence. Therefore, the Court held that BCC 5.02.083 was not preempted by ORS 430.402(1)(b) because the statute specifically provides for the creation of the ordinance which Defendant was arrested for violating. Affirmed. 

Advanced Search