State v. King

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. King

752 P.2d 869, 90 Or. App. 440, 1988 Ore. App. LEXIS 463

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 13, 1988

Docket87-0162; CA A45519; 87-0191; CA A45520

StatusPublished

This text of 752 P.2d 869 (State v. King) 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. King, 752 P.2d 869, 90 Or. App. 440, 1988 Ore. App. LEXIS 463 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In these criminal cases, consolidated for appeal, each of the two defendants was charged with the manufacture and possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. The trial court’s order suppressed all evidence resulting from the search of the defendants’ house on the grounds that the information provided by a named informant in the search warrant affidavit was “stale” and, thus, did not provide the probable cause necessary for the issuance of the search warrant. The state appeals. We reverse.

Whether the length of time that elapsed causes the basis for a warrant as described by an affiant to become “stale” will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts asserted in the affidavit indicated that there was a large scale, on-going drug operation from which a magistrate, after considering all of the relevant factors contained within the affidavit, could reasonably infer that the contraband was still on the premises.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

In these criminal cases, consolidated for appeal, each of the two defendants was charged with the manufacture and possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. The trial court’s order suppressed all evidence resulting from the search of the defendants’ house on the grounds that the information provided by a named informant in the search warrant affidavit was “stale” and, thus, did not provide the probable cause necessary for the issuance of the search warrant. The state appeals. We reverse.

Whether the length of time that elapsed causes the basis for a warrant as described by an affiant to become “stale” will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts asserted in the affidavit indicated that there was a large scale, on-going drug operation from which a magistrate, after considering all of the relevant factors contained within the affidavit, could reasonably infer that the contraband was still on the premises.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 P.2d 869, 90 Or. App. 440, 1988 Ore. App. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-king-orctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack