State v. Mepham

613 P.2d 500, 46 Or. App. 839, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2890
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJune 30, 1980
DocketNo. 10-79-05952, CA 15309; No. 10-79-05953, CA 15310
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 613 P.2d 500 (State v. Mepham) 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. Mepham, 613 P.2d 500, 46 Or. App. 839, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2890 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

WARDEN, J.

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]*842through 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.

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

Related

State v. Huff
291 P.3d 751 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2012)
State v. Baldwin
712 P.2d 120 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1985)
State v. Tallman
712 P.2d 116 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1985)
State v. Miebach
629 P.2d 1312 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
613 P.2d 500, 46 Or. App. 839, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mepham-orctapp-1980.