City of Salem v. Guillen

CITY OF SALEM v. LAUREL GUILLEN, Defendant-Respondent

233 Or. App. 133, 227 P.3d 171, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 2150 • 2009-12-30

Citation233 Or. App. 133, 227 P.3d 171, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 2150

Date Filed2009-12-30

Docket07C40078; A136956

JudgeLandau, Ortega, Schuman

Cited0 times

StatusPublished

Attorneys

Sean T. Brady, Assistant City Attorney, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant., Kevin T. Lafky argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Leslie D. Gomez.

Full Opinion (html_with_citations)

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted in Salem Municipal Court of one count of prohibited touching. Salem Revised Code (SRC) 96.300(a). She appealed to Marion County Circuit Court for trial de novo, as authorized by ORS 221.359 and ORS 221.360, and moved to dismiss the charges on the ground (among others) that the code provision violates Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, the state’s free expression guarantee. The court agreed and dismissed the charges. The city appeals.

City of Salem v. Lawrow, 233 Or App 32, 225 P3d 51 (2009), is identical to this case except for the identity of the defendant. In Lawrow, we held that SRC 96.300(a) violated Article I, section 8. That decision controls here.

Affirmed.