State v. Huff
253 Or. App. 480
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant convicted of unlawful delivery and unlawful possession of methamphetamine as commercial drug offenses under ORS 475.900(l)(b).
- Issue on appeal: trial court denied suppression of evidence from a residence/search warrant; affidavit allegedly insufficient for probable cause.
- Telephonic search warrant sought to search defendant’s RV and a shop on the property based on an affidavit by Detective Floyd.
- Earlier seizure: in 2006, officers seized a commercial quantity of crystal methamphetamine from the shop.
- On Oct. 8, 2009, parole/probation contact prompted a home visit; a quarter-gram of methamphetamine and meth pipe were found at the RV; Burback consented to search the RV; Hasner did not consent to search her area.
- Affidavit included officer training/experience, past drug activity at the site, defendant’s supervision status, and association with Burback; trial court denied suppression; on appeal, conviction reversed and remanded for Counts 1 and 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit establishes probable cause | Mepham/Kittredge logic; stale prior drug activity improperly considered | Information is too stale or not sufficiently linked to ongoing drug distribution | Probable cause not established; suppression reversed |
| Staleness and refreshing information | Past seizure still probative with new information; not stale | Castro-like stale information cannot be refreshed by different recent facts | Stale information insufficient to support probable cause when not sufficiently linked to ongoing distribution |
| Linkage between current drugs, implements, and ongoing distribution | Past drug history and current use evidence imply distribution ongoing at location | No nexus shown between user-amounts and ongoing distribution; no link to other items | Insufficient nexus; magistrate erred in probable cause finding |
| Role of officer’s training/expertise in establishing probable cause | Officer training could justify inferences about drug activity | Training alone cannot establish probable cause without corroborating facts | Affidavit lacked sufficient inferential support from training to establish probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255 (2008) (probable cause must be supported by facts; not mere suspicion)
- State v. Gale/Rowden, 105 Or App 489 (1991) (staleness evaluated in totality; ongoing conduct possible if supported by facts)
- State v. Howell, 93 Or App 551 (1988) (information may be considered despite lapse in time when totality supports probable cause)
- Castro, 194 Or App 109 (2004) (difference between stale prior info and recent event matters; Castro distinguished)
- Kittredge/Anderson, 36 Or App 603 (1978) (insufficient to infer ongoing distribution from limited prior info without nexus)
- McGee, 45 Or App 13 (1980) (limited prior observed drug quantities insufficient for probable cause)
- Wilson, 178 Or App 163 (2001) (probable cause requires more than a possibility; need likelihood)