Oregon Supreme Court, April 18, 2019
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
PREEMPTION — Local ordinances regarding public drinking
Beaverton's public-drinking ordinance is not preempted by state law. Affirmed.
By ordinance, Beaverton bans drinking in public. Defendant was stopped for public drinking in a parking lot. He argued that, although a municipality could ban drinking in specified public places, it could not ban drinking in all public places. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that, under state law, as long as all drinking is banned, a municipality can ban drinking in specified public places or all public places.
State v. Uroza-Zuniga 364 Or 682 (April 18, 2019) (Balmer) (Washington County, Knapp)
PROBATION VIOLATIONS — Findings supporting consecutive PV sanctions
Trial court properly found multiple violations supporting multiple consecutive sanctions. Affirmed.
Defendant was alleged to have violated his probation. At the hearing, the judge described the allegations as contact with the victim, being within 1000 feet of the victim's home, and using illegal drugs. The trial court found, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that multiple letters defendant sent to the victim from prison constituted separate violations of his probation. The court rejected defendant's argument that, by alleging three different violations of three different probation terms, the state failed to provide notice that each letter was a separate violation of the no-contact condition.
State v. Sparks 364 Or 696 (April 18, 2019) (Duncan) (Multnomah County, Wittmayer)