State v. Heyne
348 P.3d 1170
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Police obtained a warrant to search Yunke and Heyne’s Lebanon home after Officer Ogden’s affidavit recounted a traffic stop of Yunke where officers found 11 ounces of marijuana, some packaged in one‑ounce baggies, plus a pistol and knife.
- Yunke presented an expired medical‑marijuana card and told officers he had applied for renewal; he did not provide documentation when asked, and DHS told police he had not applied to renew and that the expired card had previously authorized growing at his Lebanon residence.
- Ogden’s affidavit included his training/opinion that more than 1/8 ounce is a dealer quantity and that sellers commonly conceal controlled substances in buildings and vehicles they control.
- Magistrate issued the search warrant for the home; the search recovered marijuana and related items, and defendants were charged.
- Defendants moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the affidavit failed to show probable cause linking the car’s marijuana to the home; the trial court granted suppression.
- The state appealed; the appellate court reviewed whether a neutral magistrate could reasonably conclude the affidavit established probable cause to search the home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause to search the residence for marijuana/evidence of dealing | State: affidavit showed Yunke possessed a large quantity (11 oz) and indicia of dealing; Yunke’s home was authorized growth site and thus likely to contain evidence | Defendants: affidavit lacked sufficient facts connecting the marijuana in the car to the home—only link was prior authorization to grow there | Court reversed suppression: magistrate could reasonably infer unlawful possession/dealing and that related evidence would likely be at the residence |
| Whether statements Heyne made during execution should be suppressed (cross‑appeal) | N/A (cross‑appellant challenged denial) | Heyne: search unlawful so statements should be suppressed | Court rejected cross‑appeal because it held the warrant/search lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Goodman, 328 Or 318 (1999) (upheld warrant to search residence linked to remote grow site; residence likely to contain evidence)
- State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255 (2008) (standard of review for magistrate’s probable‑cause determination)
- State v. Tacker, 241 Or 597 (1965) (affidavits construed commonsense and realistically)
- State v. Henderson, 341 Or 219 (2006) (deference to reasonable inferences from affidavit facts)