State v. Stull

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Stull

831 P.2d 690, 113 Or. App. 156, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 929

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 13, 1992

Docket90-02-31186; CA A68331

StatusPublished

This text of 831 P.2d 690 (State v. Stull) 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. Stull, 831 P.2d 690, 113 Or. App. 156, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 929 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant petitions for review of our affirmance of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We treat the petition as one for reconsideration. ORAP 9.15(1).

Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained by a search conducted pursuant to a warrant. He argued that, because the affidavit supporting the warrant does not show that the confidential informant (Cl) was credible or her information reliable, it did not establish probable cause. ORS 133.545(4); State v. Carlile, 290 Or 161, 164, 619 P2d 1280 (1980). The trial court found that the fruits of the search conducted pursuant to the warrant established that the Cl was reliable and, therefore, denied defendant’s motion.

Because a search and seizure cannot be justified by its fruits, State v. Ford, 20 Or App 384, 387, 531 P2d 740 (1985), a court cannot consider evidence other than that in the affidavit. See State v. Dunavant, 250 Or 570, 575, 444 P2d 1 (1968). Nevertheless, any error was harmless, because the information within the four corners of the affidavit establishes probable cause. See State v. Morrison/Bartee, 107 Or App 343, 351 n 10, 812 P2d 832, mod 108 Or App 766, 816 P2d 1217 (1991).

Reconsideration allowed; former decision adhered to.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant petitions for review of our affirmance of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We treat the petition as one for reconsideration. ORAP 9.15(1).

Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained by a search conducted pursuant to a warrant. He argued that, because the affidavit supporting the warrant does not show that the confidential informant (Cl) was credible or her information reliable, it did not establish probable cause. ORS 133.545(4); State v. Carlile, 290 Or 161, 164, 619 P2d 1280 (1980). The trial court found that the fruits of the search conducted pursuant to the warrant established that the Cl was reliable and, therefore, denied defendant’s motion.

Because a search and seizure cannot be justified by its fruits, State v. Ford, 20 Or App 384, 387, 531 P2d 740 (1985), a court cannot consider evidence other than that in the affidavit. See State v. Dunavant, 250 Or 570, 575, 444 P2d 1 (1968). Nevertheless, any error was harmless, because the information within the four corners of the affidavit establishes probable cause. See State v. Morrison/Bartee, 107 Or App 343, 351 n 10, 812 P2d 832, mod 108 Or App 766, 816 P2d 1217 (1991).

Reconsideration allowed; former decision adhered to.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

831 P.2d 690, 113 Or. App. 156, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stull-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack