State v. Marquardt

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Marquardt

603 P.2d 1198, 43 Or. App. 515, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 3437

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 10, 1979

Docket24540, CA 14367

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 603 P.2d 1198 (State v. Marquardt) 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. Marquardt, 603 P.2d 1198, 43 Or. App. 515, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 3437 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

*517 THORNTON, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction of possession of a ntrolled substance (ORS 475.992(4)) and assigns as ror the denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of search of his house on the ground that the affidavit rming the basis for the issuance of the warrant Lowed on its face that the information contained in e affidavit was stale. The warrant was sought and sued on February 3, 1979. The allegations of the ■fidavit came largely from personal observations ade at the same house on the alleged date of "Februy 03, 1978. ”

Relying on the rule that probable cause must be termined from the "four corners” of the affidavit, the information properly before the magistrate, fendant contends the information was stale as a atter of law and the warrant invalid. This argument without merit. It hardly seems likely that the af-tnt would wait exactly one year from the date he tained his information and then seek a warrant at p.m. Based on this circumstance, the magistrate, if noticed the error at all, could properly conclude that was a clerical error and that the date referred to was bruary 3, 1979. There is no contention that the 'idavit was otherwise insufficient to establish probable cause. The error was a result of the haste of minal investigation and to treat it in any other inner is to apply a hypertechnical standard of review disapproved by the United States Supreme Court. United States v. Ventresca, 380 US 102, 108, 85 S Ct 741, 13 L Ed 2d 684 (1965). See also State v. Diaz, 29 Or App 523, 528, n 3, 564 P2d 1066 (1977).

Affirmed.

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

*517 THORNTON, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction of possession of a ntrolled substance (ORS 475.992(4)) and assigns as ror the denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of search of his house on the ground that the affidavit rming the basis for the issuance of the warrant Lowed on its face that the information contained in e affidavit was stale. The warrant was sought and sued on February 3, 1979. The allegations of the ■fidavit came largely from personal observations ade at the same house on the alleged date of "Februy 03, 1978. ”

Relying on the rule that probable cause must be termined from the "four corners” of the affidavit, the information properly before the magistrate, fendant contends the information was stale as a atter of law and the warrant invalid. This argument without merit. It hardly seems likely that the af-tnt would wait exactly one year from the date he tained his information and then seek a warrant at p.m. Based on this circumstance, the magistrate, if noticed the error at all, could properly conclude that was a clerical error and that the date referred to was bruary 3, 1979. There is no contention that the 'idavit was otherwise insufficient to establish probable cause. The error was a result of the haste of minal investigation and to treat it in any other inner is to apply a hypertechnical standard of review disapproved by the United States Supreme Court. United States v. Ventresca, 380 US 102, 108, 85 S Ct 741, 13 L Ed 2d 684 (1965). See also State v. Diaz, 29 Or App 523, 528, n 3, 564 P2d 1066 (1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

603 P.2d 1198, 43 Or. App. 515, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 3437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-marquardt-orctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack