State v. Mack
Citation | 535 P.2d 766,21 Or.App. 522 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Arthur William MACK, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 27 May 1975 |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
John M. Biggs, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Allen & Biggs, Eugene.
Janet A. Metcalf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FOLEY and FORT, JJ.
Defendant was convicted by the court sitting without a jury of possession of marihuana in a quantity greater than an ounce, ORS 167.207. He appeals from the resulting judgment, assigning as error failure of the trial court to grant his separate motions to suppress, first, evidence obtained from a residence and, second, evidence subsequently obtained from a garage, each pursuant to a search warrant.
Essentially, the matter resolves itself into the sufficiency of the affidavit to support the warrant issued to search defendant's residence. It is agreed that defendant's was himself arrested at that time and place, and that in the search incident to his arrest there was found information which led the police to the location of a rented garage. Observation through a window of that garage disclosed the information which led to the obtaining of a second search warrant. Substantial quantities of narcotics were found in the search both of his house and the garage.
The state conceded in the trial court that if the warrant for the search of defendant's residence was unlawful, then under the rule of Wong Sun v. United States 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), commonly referred to as the 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' doctrine (Annotation, 43 A.L.R.3d 385 (1972)), the search of the rented garage was also unlawful.
The challenged affidavit stated:
'* * *
'I, Sheryl L. Hackett, being first duly sworn on oath, hereby depose and say as follows:
'As a member of the Lane Interagency Narcotics Team, having been trained exclusively in the field of narcotics and dangerous drugs, I am familiar with Arthur William Mack and know that he was arrested for possession of marihuana and possession of cocaine on November 30, 1973; that he had made a similar compartment in another vehicle, Oregon license 9J 7102, and had narcotics hidden in that compartment as well as in compartments in a second vehicle, Oregon license H902963, both vehicles being registered to Arthur Mack; and that Arthur Mack also has a Fall City address.
'On February 22, 1974 I was informed by Richard Tenderella of the Oregon State Police Narcotics Unit, assigned to the Marion Interagency Narcotics Team that Gilbert Lioyd Greenwood was arrested at a Salem residence for CAID on February 21, 1974 and that a search was made resulting in the seizure of nine (9) bindles of cocaine and one (1) bag containing five (5) lids of marihuana from the subject's coat pocket and one (1) large grocery bag containing three (3) kilos of marihuana and one (1) grocery bag containing 1/2 kilo of marihuana from the back of the subject's van, Oregon license JAC 465, the van I observed leave 1968 1/2 Labona, earlier in the afternoon.
'Based on the above-described information, your affiant has probable cause to believe that the narcotic drugs marihuana and cocaine are currently located at the above-described residence or concealed in the vehicles Oregon license MGB 504, Oregon license FAQ 546, Oregon license T343027 and any other vehicles located on the premises of the above-described residence.
'WHEREFORE, your affiant prays this court issue a warrant for the search of the residence located at 1968 1/2 Labona, Eugene, Lane County, Oregon; further described as being a wood-frame, single-family dwelling, Brown in color with yellow trim and a '1/2' sign on the front and located at the north end and west side of Labona Street, Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, and the vehicles Oregon license MGB 504, Oregon license FAQ 546, Oregon license T343027 and any other vehicles parked in the driveway and yard of 1968 1/2 Labona.
'* * *.' (Emphasis supplied.)
It is true, as defendant asserts, that the mere fact that a person has been at some time earlier in his life engaged in unlawful drug activity does not, standing alone, furnish probable cause to support the issuance of a warrant for the search of his home or his person. State v. Sagner, 12 Or.App. 459, 506 P.2d 510, Sup.Ct. review denied (1973); State v. Cloman,254 Or. 1, 456 P.2d 67 (1969). Such, however, is not the situation revealed here. This affidavit states facts tending to show:
1. Defendant's current association at his home with persons with prior illegal drug involvement;
2. Defendant's own prior arrest within the past four months on a drug charge, which arrest was within the personal knowledge of the affiant;
3. Defendant's prior modus operandi of constructing hidden compartments in vehicles to contain narcotics 4. Information from an unnamed citizen that defendant had constructed a similar compartment in one of his vehicles;
5. Confirmation of the citizen's reliability through an independent check of the registration of the defendant's ownership of the vehicle described by the informant, and of defendant's Falls City address; and
6. The observation of defendant in the afternoon apparently loading objects at and from the premises sought to be searched, which was his own home, into the rear of the turquoise panel van, which was later that same day found to contain a large quantity of illegal drugs.
Perhaps the most persuasive facts set out in the affidavit are defendant's past involvement in unlawful drug activity, his present association with known drug users and a drug seller, and his apparent loading at and from his own home something into the van which was later that same...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mack v. Cupp
...Or.Rev.Stat. § 167.207 (1975). The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, filing a written opinion. State v. Mack, 21 Or.App. 522, 535 P.2d 766 (1975). Mack's petition for review in the Oregon Supreme Court was denied because it was filed late. In November, 1975, Mack petitioned t......
-
State v. Poppe
...a search warrant. State v. Illingworth, 60 Or.App. 150, 652 P.2d 834 (1982), rev. den. 294 Or. 569, 660 P.2d 683 (1983); State v. Mack, 21 Or.App. 522, 532, 535 P.2d 766, rev. den. (1975). Because the front door was a lawful vantage point from which to look into the window, doing so was not......
-
State v. Atwood
...the lot was accessible to others and the defendant "did not have control over its entrances or exits." Id. See also State v. Mack, 21 Or.App. 522, 535 P.2d 766, 771 (1975) (where defendant's garage was one in a row of garages, no violation of privacy where an officer was able to look into d......