State v. Mepham
Opinion
The state appeals from an order suppressing evidence seized pursuant to a warrant. In a suppression hearing involving a charge of possession of marijuana, the trial court had ruled the affidavit insufficient to support the issuance of a warrant. An additional charge, tampering with drug records, presented the same issues of fact and law. The two cases, therefore, were consolidated on appeal.
The affidavit is set out below.1 The key language in the affidavit is: "While on the porch, I observed [842] through the open doorway within the aforesaid residence a coffee table WHICH WAS [sic] approximately six feet away from the front door. I noticed a green vegetable substance which I recognized to be the controlled substance marijuana in a container upon the coffee table.” The trial court ruled the contraband that had been in plain sight of the officers was properly seized, but that all other evidence must be suppressed. It reasoned that observation of a container of marijuana does not give rise to probable cause to believe that more drugs would be found in the residence. We agree.
In some cases, some evidence of the presence of an illegal substance may establish probable cause that more of the same material will be found. See State v. Krohn, 15 Or App 63, 514 P2d 1359 (1973). We do not consider this to be such a case. The affidavit does not provide enough facts to warrant the reasonable suspicion that the container was not the household’s entire supply. It does not justify a search of the house. See State v. McGee, 45 Or App 13, 607 P2d 217 (1980) and State v. Sagner, 12 Or App 459, 506 P2d 510 (1973).
Affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
613 P.2d 500 (State v. Mepham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.