A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Appellate Ct - Sept 28, 2016

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Sara Werboff • September 30, 2016 • no comments

Search and Seizure - Drug Dog Alert Not Sufficiently Reliable to Establish Probable Cause to Search Vehicle


The court concludes that police lacked probable cause to search a vehicle, in which defendant was a passenger, because the record failed to establish the reliability of the drug dog alert. Following a traffic stop, a drug dog alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. On the basis of that alert, police searched the vehicle under the automobile exception. The record below did not contain any details of the handler or the dog's training, whether the handler or the dog were certified and if so, what test they had to pass to get that certification, and no information about the dog's field performance. On that record, the state failed to establish the reliability of the dog's alert and therefore could not establish probable cause to search the vehicle.

The court also rejects the state's alternative basis for affirmance, where the state argued that the police had probable cause to search the vehicle before deploying the drug dog. The state based this argument on the fact that while defendant was standing near an officer, he dropped a baggie of methamphetamine on the ground. However, the record does not reveal when defendant dropped the meth, and therefore is not sufficient to support the inference that police had probable cause before they searched the vehicle.

State v. Snyder, 281 Or App 308 (2016) (Sercombe, P.J)



Search and Seizure - Search Warrant Affidavit Did Not Establish Probable Cause to Search Defendant's Home


The court concludes that a search warrant affidavit containing generic descriptions of an officer's training and experience did not establish a sufficient nexus between defendant's drug activities and defendant's home to provide probable cause to search the home. In this case, through conducting controlled buys, the officer developed probable cause to believe that defendant was involved in drug sales. Police searched defendant's car and did not find any drugs in it. Based on their investigation, the officer sought a warrant to search defendant's home. In the warrant affidavit, the officer described the investigation and then asserted that drug dealers commonly keep evidence of their crimes in their homes.

The court concludes that there were no objective facts in the affidavit to establish probable cause to search defendant's home. Additionally, the training and experience information was only significant to the extent it was connected with the objective content of the affidavit and to the extent it informed the magistrate's understanding of that content. Here, the objective facts set forth in the affidavit, and the connection between those facts and the officer's training and experience, were too weak to establish probable cause to search defendant's home. The officer "did not purport to rely on his training and experience to explain the significance of his objective observations [and] did not meaningfully tie his expertise to the objective facts in any way."


State v. Webber, 281 Or App 342 (2016) (DeHoog, J.)



Per Curiam - Resentencing on Lesser-Included Offenses


The court accepts the state's concession that it failed to prove that defendant committed first-degree custodial interference by exposing her daughter to a "substantial risk of physical injury." The court remands for reentry of judgment on second-degree custodial interference charges.


State v. Middleton, 281 Or App 369 (2016) (per curiam)



Per Curiam - Conditions of Probation - Fines and Fees


The court holds that the trial court lacked authority to impose "conditions of probation" because defendant was sentenced to a jail term. Additionally, the court vacates the $100 bench probation fee and the $255 DUII fee because those fees were applied in error. The court notes that those terms were automatically included in the judgment and no affirmative steps were taken to remove them.


State v. Jonas, 281 Or App 372 (2016) (per curiam)



Per Curiam - Insufficiency of Evidence for Failure to Report as a Sex Offender


The court accepts the state's concession that there was insufficient evidence to convict defendant of failure to report as a sex offender in light of State v. Hiner, 269 Or App 877 (2015).


State v. McColligan, 281 Or App 375 (2016) (per curiam)