A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Appellate Ct - April 29, 2015

From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews
Revision as of 11:36, May 1, 2015 by Abassos@mpdlaw.com (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Frangieringer and Abassos • April 30, 2015 • no comments

Search Warrant – Expired Medical Marijuana Card and 11 ounces of Weed is Enough for a Warrant

A search warrant was validly issued based on an officer’s affidavit stating that: · The officer had stopped the Defendant and found eleven ounces of marijuana in the Defendant’s car, some of which was stored in one ounce baggies. · The Defendant had an expired medical marijuana card that permitted the Defendant to grow marijuana at his home. · Dealers typically conceal substances in vehicles and buildings they control. Because the affidavit linked the Defendant to the marijuana found in his car, and linked the marijuana to Defendant’s home via the expired medical marijuana card, “a reasonable magistrate could conclude that it was likely that marijuana and marijuana-related items would be found at [the Defendant’s] home.” The trial court was in error to grant the motion to suppress. State v. Heyne / Yunke, 270 Or App 601 (2015).

Stops - Reasonable Suspicion – "Couple of Guys Smoking Something"

Officers have reasonable suspicion to stop a defendant where they can reasonably infer that drugs are being used. Here, dispatch received a call from a low-crime area that a “couple of guys were smoking something” in a car. An officer was sent to investigate. As he approached the car he noticed that the passenger was a known drug user, and that the Defendant was making furtive movements as though he was “concealing a large hard object.” Under the totality of the circumstances the officer had reasonable suspicion that the Defendant possessed meth where the officer could reasonably infer that the informant “believed that the smoking involved criminal activity,” the passenger was a known methamphetamine user, and the Defendant seemed to be hiding something. The trial court was correct to deny the motion to suppress. State v. Clink, 270 Or App 646 (2015).