Submitted December 19, 2016
County Circuit Court 14CR3019FE; Ann Marie Simmons, Judge.
F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Deputy
Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney
General, fled the brief for appellant.
G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and
John Evans, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense
Services, fled the brief for respondent.
Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr,
state appeals from a pretrial order granting in part and
denying in part defendant's motion to suppress. We have
jurisdiction to review the order under ORS 138.060(1)(c).
After his home, a recreational vehicle (RV), was searched
pursuant to a search warrant, defendant was charged by
indictment with one count of delivery of methamphetamine
within 1, 000 feet of a school, ORS 475.892, one count of
unlawful delivery of methamphetamine, ORS 475.890, one count
of unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, one
count of driving while suspended, ORS 811.182, and one count
of unlawful possession of between one and four ounces of
marijuana, ORS 475.864(3)(b) (2013), amended by Or
Laws 2015, ch 1, § 79; Or Laws 2015, ch 614, §123;
Or Laws 2016, ch 24, § 46. Defendant moved to suppress
the evidence discovered as a result of the search. The trial
court granted defendant's motion in part, concluding that
the affidavit supporting the warrant did not state facts
sufficient for a reasonable and detached magistrate to find
probable cause to search defendant's RV. The state
appeals, claiming that the trial court's decision was
erroneous because, when read in its entirety, the affidavit
did establish probable cause to search defendant's RV. We
agree with the state and, accordingly, reverse and remand the
part of the order suppressing evidence found in
defendant's RV and otherwise affirm.
the facts from the uncontroverted portions of the affidavit
submitted in support of the warrant. State v.
Goodman. 328 Or 318, 325, 975 P.2d 458 (1999). The
relevant facts are undisputed. Detective Hansen, a member of
the Douglas Interagency Narcotics Team, began investigating
defendant for delivery of methamphetamine. In an attempt to
discover where defendant resided, Hansen spoke with Sergeant
Tilley of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, whom
Hansen knew was familiar with defendant. Tilley told Hansen
that defendant had been living in Sutherlin in one of the two
RVs that defendant owned. However, Tilley also told Hansen
that defendant had recently moved, and, though one of his RVs
remained in Sutherlin, Tilley did not know where the other RV
was located. Following additional investigation, Hansen
discovered that defendant was residing in his second RV on
property within 1, 000 feet of a school in Oakland.
December 2, 2014, Hansen conducted surveillance of
defendant's residence in Oakland. While watching
defendant's home, Hansen saw defendant leave in a blue
Toyota truck. At that time, Hansen knew, based on previous
research, that defendant's license was suspended. Hansen
followed defendant for a while, but eventually lost him.
After coordinating with a number of other law enforcement
agents, Hansen arranged for another officer to stop defendant
for driving while suspended. Defendant was stopped and
arrested on that charge.
eventually joined that traffic stop. Hansen spoke with
defendant and asked if he would consent to a search of his
truck. Defendant refused to consent, so Hansen called for a
drug detection dog. While waiting for the drug detection dog
to arrive, defendant spoke with another officer at the scene
and indicated that he had around two ounces of marijuana in
his vehicle and that he did not have a medical marijuana
card. Hansen then spoke with defendant again, and defendant
confirmed that he was living at the address where Hansen had
previously observed him in Oakland. Officers then searched
defendant's truck and found approximately 2.3 ounces of
finding the marijuana, Hansen spoke with defendant for a
third time. He asked defendant if there was any marijuana or
drug paraphernalia in his RV. Defendant said that there was
no paraphernalia in his RV, but indicated that the RV did
contain "a little bit of marijuana." During that
conversation, neither Hansen nor defendant specified which of
defendant's RVs they were discussing.
was taken to jail, and, based upon the information that they
had received from defendant, two law enforcement
officers-Detective Bird and Sergeant Case- drove to
defendant's residence in Oakland. There, the officers
contacted Braack, defendant's landlord who also lived on
the property in Oakland where defendant's RV was located.
After confirming that defendant lived in the RV on the
property, Braack told the officers that she had "a
lot" of marijuana in her bedroom closet that she was
"trimming" for defendant so that he could sell it
to his "patients." Braack then let Bird and Case
into her home and showed Case the marijuana in her closet.
on the above information, Hansen applied for a search warrant
for the Braack residence, defendant's RV in Oakland, and
a Pontiac Grand Prix that belonged to defendant that was also
located on Braack's property in Oakland. Based upon
Hansen's application, a magistrate issued a warrant.
Pursuant to that warrant, officers searched defendant's
RV and found, among other things, a quarter pound of
marijuana, a large amount of methamphetamine,
meth-amphetamine paraphernalia, and a large quantity of cash.
was eventually charged by a five-count indictment with
various offenses related to his possession of methamphetamine
and marijuana. Defendant moved to suppress "all evidence
seized from his person and/or vehicle, *** and his home, an
RV." After excising portions of Hansen's affidavit,
the trial court held that the affidavit failed to establish
the probable cause necessary to justify the search of
defendant's RV. Looking at each fact in the affidavit
individually, the court concluded that none of the facts,
including defendant's possession of over two ounces of
marijuana, his statement that he had more marijuana in his
RV, his landlord's statements indicating that she was
processing a lot of marijuana for defendant, and the large
amount of marijuana his landlord had in her bedroom closet,
established a sufficient link between defendant's illegal
activities and his RV in Oakland such that a ...