Supreme Court State of Oregon Petitioner-Respondent-Respondent versus Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner
Petition for Judicial Review
Brian P. Carr Respondent:
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
The State of Oregon Plaintiff / Respondent / Respondent versus Brian P. Carr Defendant / Appellant / Petitioner |
Case |
The Defendant / Appellant / Petitioner, Brian P. Carr, hereby seeks judicial review of the Decision filed on November 7, 2007 by the Oregon Court of Appeals Judges Haselton, Armstrong, and Rosenblum in this matter. A true and accurate copy of this decision is attached.
Parties
The parties to this review are:
Hardy Myers, #64007, Attorney General Mary Williams, #91124, Solicitor General Christina M. Hutchins, #92470, Assistant Attorney General 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 Telephone: (503) 378-4402 christina.hutchins@doj.state.or.us |
Defendant / Appellant / Appellant Brian P. Carr 11301 NE 7th St., Apt J5 Vancouver, WA 98684 503-545-8357 brian@brian.carr.name |
Decision for which review is sought
The decision of the Court of Appeals in its entirety was 'AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION'. The trial court's decision was not substantially longer though there was some justification at the hearing in the matter.
Justification for Review
The trial court relied on narrow interpretations of the trial court's jurisdiction in ORS 137.225, ORS 33.015-155, ORS 181-555, and OAR 257-010-0035 (3) in denying the Motion to Set Aside (arrest record) with the unfortunate effect of leaving gaps in the due process procedures required by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court declined to address the request for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with respect to due process and equal protection under the law.
Petition for Judicial Review, November 20, 2007 | CA A132012 2 / 4 |
One of the questions requested for consideration is whether the state can discriminate against those individuals who were arrested but for whom there was no probable cause of any crime or other justification for the arrest. The absence of any crime associated with an arrest is not justifiable discrimination for precluding the sealing of the record of the arrest as would be permitted if there had been probable cause of some crime. While the trial court cautiously cited a lack of jurisdiction concerning due process in the state's maintenance of criminal records, it would be appropriate for state courts address these issues before federal courts are asked to ruleon these matters. The other questions raised in the petitioner's brief to the Court of Appeals are requested for consideration as well.
Certification of Filing
I certify that on November 20, 2007 I filed the original of this petition for judicial review with the State Court Administrator at the following address:
State Court Administrator
Supreme Court Building
1163 State Street
Salem, OR 97301-2563
by mailing with the
United States Postal Service via ordinary first class mail. If it is
not received and filed in the required time frame, an alternative
method of filing will be attempted.
Certification of Service
I certify that on November 20, 2007 I served a true copy of this petition for judicial review on the state and Oregon Court of Appeals at the following addresses:
Reference CA A132012
Hardy Myers, #64007, Attorney General
Mary Williams, #91124, Solicitor General
Christina M. Hutchins, #92470, Assistant Attorney General
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
and
Petition for Judicial Review, November 20, 2007 | CA A132012 3 / 4 |
Oregon Court of Appeals
Reference CA A132012
State Court Administrator, Records Section
Supreme Court Building
1163 State Street
Salem, OR 97301-2563
by
mailing with the United States Postal Service via ordinary first
class mail.
|
Brian P. Carr Signature of Petitioner Brian P. Carr 11301 NE 7th St., Apt J5 Vancouver, WA 98684 503-545-8357 |
Petition for Judicial Review, November 20, 2007 | CA A132012 4 / 4 |