State v. Garza
| Decision Date | 21 February 1978 |
| Citation | 574 P.2d 1151,32 Or.App. 643 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Anicleto Humberto GARZA, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Gary L. Hooper, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Catherine Allan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and Al J. Laue, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C. J., and JOHNSON, * JOSEPH and ROBERTS, JJ.
Defendant appeals from his conviction of criminal activity in drugs, assigning as error the trial court's failure to suppress evidence seized at the time of his arrest. Defendant contends that the officer conducting the search did not have reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and presently dangerous.
On November 19, 1975, operating under a valid search warrant, police entered and searched an apartment for marijuana. When police entered the apartment there were approximately 14 people present and the entrance caused some minor disturbances consisting of verbal protestations from two or three individuals. After entering the apartment, police conducted a pat-down search of every individual present. It was during this search of defendant that the officer felt a long hard object in defendant's pocket, which he suspected to be a weapon. Upon removal, the object was discovered to be rolled money and a roll of tinfoil. The officer opened the tinfoil and discovered heroin.
The officer in charge of the search testified at the suppression hearing that the defendant did nothing which might have indicated that he was armed or dangerous. The same officer testified that it is his custom to conduct a pat-down search of everyone present when he is executing a search warrant for drugs. This custom is based on his past experiences in executing such warrants.
Defendant claims that since the decision to conduct a pat-down search was based on officer's experience rather than on identifiable actions of the defendant, it was an illegal search. Defendant relies upon Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), where the court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kurtz, C
...The demurrer was properly overruled. Affirmed. 1 Defendant does not question the validity of the frisk itself.2 Cf. State v. Garza, 32 Or.App. 643, 645, 574 P.2d 1151, 1152, rev. den. 283 Or. 1, 580 P.2d 1030 (1978), cert. den. 439 U.S. 989, 99 S.Ct. 588, 58 L.Ed.2d 663 (1978), where althou......
-
State v. Cota, s. C81-01-30768
...to see if anyone else was upstairs. See State v. Miller, 45 Or.App. 407, 608 P.2d 595, rev. den. 289 Or. 275 (1980); State v. Garza, 32 Or.App. 643, 574 P.2d 1151, rev. den. 283 Or. 1, 580 P.2d 1030 Rather than accept the state's position, with the resulting broader scope of permissible pol......
-
State v. Weber, C82-05-35223
...professed belief that the pat-down was a necessary safety precaution. Second, the state contends that two Oregon cases, State v. Garza, 32 Or.App. 643, 574 P.2d 1151, rev.den., 283 Or. 1, 580 P.2d 1030, cert. den. 439 U.S. 989, 99 S.Ct. 588, 58 L.Ed.2d 663 (1978), and State v. Taylor, 62 Or......
-
State v. Bishop
...heard the searching officer say, "Look what I found" as he displayed the already opened canister. The state relies on State v. Garza, 32 Or.App. 643, 574 P.2d 1151, rev. den. 283 Or. 1, 580 P.2d 1030, cert. den., 439 U.S. 989, 99 S.Ct. 588, 58 L.Ed.2d 663 (1978). 3 In that case we concluded......