State v. Fronterhouse
243 P.3d 1208
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendants Fronterhouse and Conant were convicted of unlawful possession and unlawful manufacture of marijuana under ORS 475.864(2) and ORS 475.856.
- They challenged denial of suppression of evidence found during a warranted search of their property.
- Detective Goodpasture sought the warrant based on aerial observations indicating marijuana cultivation at defendants’ address and higher power usage.
- Goodpasture averred extensive experience identifying marijuana grows from air and that he counted at least eight marijuana plants in greenhouse structures via photographs.
- The magistrate issued the warrant; during the search, the contested evidence was seized and defendants moved to suppress.
- The trial court excised a sentence about counting eight plants from the affidavit, then held the remaining facts supplied probable cause; the court denied suppression and defendants were convicted on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did excision of the sentence about counting eight plants affect probable cause? | State contends excision left sufficient facts for probable cause. | Fronterhouse/Conant argue excision undermined probable cause per Carter/Grant. | No error; remaining facts supported probable cause. |
| Does the affidavit, under totality of circumstances, show probable cause to search for marijuana? | State asserts expert's experience and belief supported marijuana presence. | Defendants rely on Carter/Grant needing explicit unique marijuana characteristics. | Affidavit established subjective belief plus substantial expertise; probable cause found. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Castilleja, 345 Or. 255 (2008) (probable-cause review includes assessing affidavit's facts and inferences)
- State v. Anspach, 298 Or. 375 (1984) (omissions and inferences affect probable-cause analysis)
- State v. Carter/Grant, 316 Or. 6 (1993) (affidavit must state belief that observed items are marijuana; mere consistency is insufficient)
- State v. Harp, 299 Or. 1 (1985) (omissions impact inferences from warrant affidavits)