required the police to use a specific type of confirmatory test pursuant to the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) guidelines when testing for several kinds of drugs. The statute did not explicitly mandate exclusion of urine tests that did not comply with NIDA guidelines. Id. at 294. Nevertheless, we concluded that “the legislature’s purpose for the adoption of the guideline demonstrates that the statute imposes a preliminary admissibility requirement” that the urine tests comply with the guidelines. Id. at 296. Thus, if the legislature manifested its intention to impose a foundational requirement or exclude particular evidence, the courts have to give effect to that intention, notwithstanding ORS 136.432. Id.; see also State v. Prew, 213 Or App 336, 339-40, 161 P3d 323 (2007) (<HOLDING>). We proceed to the application of that
holding that the pittsburgh police department did not illegally terminate an officers hla benefits and that the police department was entitled to a subrogation interest against the officers thirdparty settlement holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant holding that the trial court had properly granted prices motion for new trial because while the state properly introduced identification testimony from a police officer who was not a witness to the offense it improperly elicited testimony that the witness was in fact a police officer who knew the defendant from working in his neighborhood holding that ors 136432 did not prevent the trial court from suppressing police officers testimony based in part on videotape allegedly obtained illegally under ors 165540 because the legislature intended to impose a foundational requirement holding that error in admission of videotape was harmless because it was cumulative of childs properly admitted live testimony