State v. Hansen, No. C

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
Writing for the CourtTHORNTON
Citation635 P.2d 390,54 Or.App. 465
PartiesSTATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. William Wayne HANSEN, Appellant. 8005-31665; CA 19706.
Decision Date10 December 1981
Docket NumberNo. C

Page 390

635 P.2d 390
54 Or.App. 465
STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
William Wayne HANSEN, Appellant.
No. C 8005-31665; CA 19706.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Argued and Submitted July 27, 1981.
Decided Nov. 2, 1981.
Reconsideration Denied Dec. 10, 1981.

Wayne Mackeson, Certified Law Student, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief was Desmond D. Connall, P. C., Portland.

Stephen F. Peifer, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Salem.

Before RICHARDSON, P. J., and THORNTON and VAN HOOMISSEN, JJ.

[54 Or.App. 467] THORNTON, Judge.

The question presented by this appeal is the legality of a police entry of defendant's residence, the "securing" of the residence by the police while an officer procured a search warrant and the subsequent search of the premises after the warrant arrived. More precisely, the issue is whether the actions of the police in "securing" defendant's residence rendered illegal a subsequent search with a search warrant issued in reliance on information other than that

Page 391

gained during the entry and "securing" of the residence.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance. His sole assignment of error is the denial of his motion to suppress a quantity of marijuana seized after the warrant was obtained.

The essential facts are as follows:

Portland police, for two months, had been conducting an undercover investigation of defendant for suspected marijuana dealing. One of the officers had gained the confidence of Wayne Bradshaw, who was believed to be obtaining his supply of marijuana from defendant. On the date in question, Officer Sawyer telephoned Bradshaw in an attempt to buy a few pounds of marijuana. On two previous occasions, Bradshaw had delivered an ounce of marijuana to Sawyer. Both times, police had observed Bradshaw go to defendant's home before making the delivery.

At 3 p. m., pursuant to the telephone call, Sawyer met with Bradshaw in a restaurant parking lot to negotiate the sale. In working out the details, Bradshaw made four trips back and forth between Sawyer and defendant's home (located five or six blocks away), all under the observation of two police surveillance units. During this time, Bradshaw told Sawyer that the high quality marijuana Sawyer was attempting to buy was not available, but there was a "shopping bag" full of lower quality marijuana at his supplier's house. When Bradshaw last left Sawyer in the parking lot at 4:47 p. m., he agreed to return with a pound of the lower quality marijuana. The officers knew of no [54 Or.App. 468] reason why Bradshaw would not have delivered the marijuana, and Bradshaw was unaware that Sawyer was a police officer.

Instead of waiting, Sawyer radioed his surveillance units and told them to "secure the residence," if Bradshaw went back to defendant's home. The officers in the surveillance units understood that they were to enter the house, arrest Bradshaw and defendant and "secure the premises for execution of a search...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • State v. Hansen, No. C
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • June 1, 1983
    ...warrant issued in reliance on information other than that gained during the entry and 'securing' of the residence." State v. Hansen, 54 Or.App. 465, 470, 635 P.2d 390, 392 Quite simply, what the police officers did in "securing" the residence was to seize it in the constitutional sense. In ......
  • State v. Howard
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • December 18, 1985
    ...the original illegality was cured by a subsequent warrant which did not depend on any illegally acquired information. State v. Hansen, 54 Or.App. 465, 635 P.2d 390 5 State v. Hansen, supra, is probably based on Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The rule under the Fourth Amen......
  • State v. Hansen
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 29, 1981
    ...1126 644 P.2d 1126 292 Or. 334 State v. Hansen (William) NO. 28272 Supreme Court of Oregon Dec 29, 1981 54 Or.App. 465, 635 P.2d 390 ALLOWED. ...
3 cases
  • State v. Hansen, No. C
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • June 1, 1983
    ...warrant issued in reliance on information other than that gained during the entry and 'securing' of the residence." State v. Hansen, 54 Or.App. 465, 470, 635 P.2d 390, 392 Quite simply, what the police officers did in "securing" the residence was to seize it in the constitutional sense. In ......
  • State v. Howard
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • December 18, 1985
    ...the original illegality was cured by a subsequent warrant which did not depend on any illegally acquired information. State v. Hansen, 54 Or.App. 465, 635 P.2d 390 5 State v. Hansen, supra, is probably based on Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The rule under the Fourth Amen......
  • State v. Hansen
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 29, 1981
    ...1126 644 P.2d 1126 292 Or. 334 State v. Hansen (William) NO. 28272 Supreme Court of Oregon Dec 29, 1981 54 Or.App. 465, 635 P.2d 390 ALLOWED. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT