State v. Lindenburger

582 P.2d 42, 35 Or. App. 623, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2865
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided August 2, 1978·No. No. 77-113 C, CA 10124·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

GILLETTE, J.

The state appeals suppression of evidence seized in a search made purusant to a warrant. The warrant was issued pursuant to the taped, sworn statement of a police officer, a transcript of the pertinent portions of which is set out in the margin.1

[626] The sworn statement is replete with probable cause. However, the officer fails to specify the date ox time oí the prior purchase of drugs which serves as the basis for issuing this warrant. Apparently, it was this omission which caused the trial judge to suppress the evidence.

We disagree with the trial judge, and reverse. A common sense reading2 of the entire sworn statement shows that it is most probable that the informant who purchased the drugs gave them to the officer soon after their purchase, and the drugs had been given to the officer "within the last 48 hours.”

Reversed and remanded.

Footnotes

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

State v. Lindenburger, 582 P.2d 42, 35 Or. App. 623, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2865 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

582 P.2d 42 (State v. Lindenburger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Smith
627 P.2d 26 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
State v. Black
585 P.2d 44 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1978)