Oregon Appellate Ct - Sept 28, 2016
by: Sara Werboff • September 30, 2016 • no comments
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
The court concludes that a search warrant affidavit containing generic descriptions of an officer's training and experience did not establish a sufficient nexus with defendant's home to provide probable cause to search it. 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 a search warrant affidavit containing generic descriptions of an officer's training and experience did not establish a sufficient nexus with defendant's home to provide probable cause to search it. 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. | + | 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." |
Revision as of 12:15, October 1, 2016
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 with defendant's home to provide probable cause to search it. 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)
