State v. Bulcao

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Bulcao

571 P.2d 920, 31 Or. App. 1017, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2104

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 5, 1977

DocketNo. 37643, CA 8621

StatusPublished

This text of 571 P.2d 920 (State v. Bulcao) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bulcao, 571 P.2d 920, 31 Or. App. 1017, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2104 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, having been convicted of criminal activity in drugs by possessing more than one ounce of marihuana, ORS 167.207, appeals, contending that her motion to suppress the physical evidence should have been allowed on the grounds that the affidavit for the search warrant which led to the seizure of the marihuana in question did not contain sufficient information to establish the reliability of an unnamed informant. The state relies upon State v. Broderick, 14 Or App 69, 511 P2d 1281 (1973), in which we held, relying on United States v. Harris, 403 US 573, 91 S Ct 2075, 29 L Ed 2d 723 (1971), that admissions against penal interest made by an unnamed informant were sufficient to establish reliability. Here, unlike in Broderick, the most that can be said for the statements attributed to the informant is that by indulging in considerable speculation it is possible to construe his statements as conceivably including admissions against interest. This is not enough.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, having been convicted of criminal activity in drugs by possessing more than one ounce of marihuana, ORS 167.207, appeals, contending that her motion to suppress the physical evidence should have been allowed on the grounds that the affidavit for the search warrant which led to the seizure of the marihuana in question did not contain sufficient information to establish the reliability of an unnamed informant. The state relies upon State v. Broderick, 14 Or App 69, 511 P2d 1281 (1973), in which we held, relying on United States v. Harris, 403 US 573, 91 S Ct 2075, 29 L Ed 2d 723 (1971), that admissions against penal interest made by an unnamed informant were sufficient to establish reliability. Here, unlike in Broderick, the most that can be said for the statements attributed to the informant is that by indulging in considerable speculation it is possible to construe his statements as conceivably including admissions against interest. This is not enough.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 P.2d 920, 31 Or. App. 1017, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bulcao-orctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack