State v. Coatney, 35910
Decision Date | 14 January 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 35910,35910 |
Citation | 604 P.2d 1269,44 Or.App. 13 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. David Wayne COATNEY, Appellant. ; CA 13980. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Steven V. Johnson, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Melinda L. Bruce, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and Walter L. Barrie, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before JOSEPH, P. J., and LEE and RICHARDSON, JJ.
Defendant appeals his conviction by the court of attempted possession of a controlled substance. He assigns as error the trial court's denial of his motion to controvert the underlying affidavit; denial of his motion to suppress evidence; and the court's finding that he was in attempted possession of a controlled substance.
Defendant shared a three-bedroom house, located at 2906 Portland Road, Newberg, Oregon, with David M. Anderson, who was a suspect in an attempted burglary investigation. Officer Farrington, the police officer investigating the burglary, submitted an affidavit for a search warrant in which he described in detail the facts surrounding an attempted burglary of a tool shed in which a window was broken. 1 At the scene, the officer observed several blood stains on the shed and in the surrounding area. He took a sample of the blood. He followed blood stained tracks leading from the shed into a nearby muddy field where he observed a set of footprints made by a "ridged sole from an athletic or 'Adidas' type shoe." The officer collected a sample of mud with an impression of this shoe. The affidavit stated:
A search warrant was issued authorizing search and seizure of an athletic shoe of the Adidas type and a sample of the blood of David M. Anderson, said evidence believed located at 2906 Portland Road, Newberg, Oregon.
On November 30, 1978, the warrant was executed. Anderson was present during the search. Officer Farrington was aware that defendant also resided at that residence and that he had a separate bedroom. The police searched the entire house before searching defendant's bedroom. No Adidas type shoes were found. During the course of the search, the police observed evidence that marijuana had been smoked in the residence. 2 When defendant's bedroom was searched, Adidas type shoes were discovered, but the soles did not match the type found at the burglary scene. Officer Farrington examined two paper shopping sacks atop defendant's dresser by reaching into them. One sack contained a crumpled rag and the other sack contained a plastic bag of vegetable material which the officer believed to be marijuana. Anderson was transported to the hospital to obtain a blood sample. During Anderson's absence, Officer Farrington called the District Attorney's office to inquire whether an additional search warrant would be necessary to seize the plastic bag and contents; he was advised that the original warrant was sufficient. Thereupon the officer went to defendant's bedroom and seized the marijuana in the paper sack.
Defendant contends that: (1) the affidavit in support of the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause; (2) the search warrant was overbroad; and (3) the execution of the search was beyond the scope of the warrant.
In his motion to controvert and on appeal, defendant challenges the good faith, accuracy and truthfulness of the hearsay information provided by the informants, Dr. Finch and Nurse Gellerstedt. He claims that his motion to controvert, pursuant to ORS 133.693, 3 should have been granted, the challenged portions excised, and that the remaining portion of the affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause for issuance of the warrant. ORS 133.693(1) provides that the defendant may contest the "good faith, accuracy and truthfulness of the Affiant." (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, a defendant may only controvert the Affiant's allegations, not the underlying information supplied by the informant. State v. Montigue, 38 Or.App. 363, 365-66, 590 P.2d 274, Review allowed 286 Or. 149 (1979). We agree with the trial court that it was proper to deny defendant's motion to controvert 4 and that the affidavit did establish probable cause to support issuance of the warrant.
The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sheehan
...Hymer, 400 So.2d 637, 638-639 (La.Sup.Ct.1981); State v. Lorenz, 368 N.W.2d 284, 286-287 (Minn.Sup.Ct.1985); State v. Coatney, 44 Or.App. 13, 18, 604 P.2d 1269, 1272 (Ct.App.1980); State v. Willcutt, 19 Or.App. 93, 94-95, 526 P.2d 607, 608 (Ct.App.1974); Poyner v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 401,......
-
Com. v. Smith
...automatically convert its rooms into 'subunits.' " Alexander, supra, 41 Wash.App. at 155, 704 P.2d at 620-621; State v. Coatney, 44 Or.App. 13, 18, 604 P.2d 1269, 1273 (1980). In contrast to the multiple-unit rule is the community-living exception, which applies where several persons occupy......
-
State v. Hawkins
...that his bedroom was "anything other than an ordinary bedroom in a residence." Id. at 246, 195 P.3d 460; see also State v. Coatney, 44 Or.App. 13, 18, 604 P.2d 1269, rev. den., 289 Or. 107 (1980) (the defendant has the burden of proving that a search conducted pursuant to a search warrant w......
-
State v. Dunning
...and truthfulness of the affiant and not at the underlying information supplied by the informant. See ORS 133.693(2); State v. Coatney, 44 Or.App. 13, 18, 604 P.2d 1269, rev. den. 289 Or. 107 (1980). Finally, defendant attempts, under cover of a motion to controvert, to argue that the trial ......