State v. Murphy

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Murphy

393 P.3d 745, 285 Or. App. 338, 2017 WL 1731080, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 547

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 3, 2017

Docket14CR0832; A161058

StatusPublished

This text of 393 P.3d 745 (State v. Murphy) 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. Murphy, 393 P.3d 745, 285 Or. App. 338, 2017 WL 1731080, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 547 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270, and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the police search of his camp trailer exceeded the scope of the search warrant under which the police conducted their search.¹ The state concedes the error, acknowledging that the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to “establish a nexus between the objects sought and the place to be searched.” State v. Tidyman, 54 Or App 640, 643-44, 635 P2d 1355 (1981), rev den, 292 Or 722 (1982); see State v. Thibodeaux, 173 Or App 353, 357, 22 P3d 248 (2001) (“When * * * the building or vehicle is owned or occupied by persons other than those suspected of criminal activity, more is required than proximity [to the suspect’s home].”). We agree with the state, accept the state’s concession that the motion to suppress should have been granted, and reverse and remand the judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270, and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the police search of his camp trailer exceeded the scope of the search warrant under which the police conducted their search.¹ The state concedes the error, acknowledging that the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to “establish a nexus between the objects sought and the place to be searched.” State v. Tidyman, 54 Or App 640, 643-44, 635 P2d 1355 (1981), rev den, 292 Or 722 (1982); see State v. Thibodeaux, 173 Or App 353, 357, 22 P3d 248 (2001) (“When * * * the building or vehicle is owned or occupied by persons other than those suspected of criminal activity, more is required than proximity [to the suspect’s home].”). We agree with the state, accept the state’s concession that the motion to suppress should have been granted, and reverse and remand the judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 P.3d 745, 285 Or. App. 338, 2017 WL 1731080, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murphy-orctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack