State v. Klingler
393 P.3d 737
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- Detective Hansen investigated defendant for methamphetamine delivery and located defendant living in an Oakland RV (one of two RVs he owned).
- During surveillance, officers stopped defendant for driving while suspended; they found ~2.3 ounces of marijuana in his truck. Defendant admitted to having more marijuana in his RV and denied having a medical marijuana card.
- Defendant’s landlord (Braack), who lived on the same property as the Oakland RV, told officers she was "trimming" a large amount of marijuana for defendant to sell to his "patients" and showed officers marijuana in her closet.
- Hansen swore an affidavit for warrants to search Braack’s house, defendant’s Oakland RV, and a Pontiac on the property; a magistrate issued warrants and officers found large quantities of marijuana, methamphetamine, paraphernalia, and cash in the RV.
- The trial court suppressed evidence seized from the Oakland RV, concluding the affidavit (as excised) lacked facts linking the RV to seizable evidence. The state appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part: it held the excised affidavit, read as a whole, established probable cause to search the Oakland RV; it remanded to allow defendant to raise any other suppression arguments not previously decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit supplied probable cause to search defendant’s Oakland RV | Affidavit facts (defendant’s admission of more marijuana in his RV; >2 oz in truck; landlord trimming large marijuana for defendant and showing officers the stash on same property) together supported probable cause to search the Oakland RV | Defendant argued the affidavit failed because he didn’t specify which RV contained marijuana and landlord was a potentially culpable informant; therefore no probable cause linked illegal activity to the Oakland RV | Held: Probable cause existed. A magistrate could reasonably infer the Oakland RV housed evidence based on the totality of circumstances and reasonable inferences. |
| Whether the case should be remanded for additional suppression arguments | State sought reversal limited to RV suppression ruling | Defendant asked remand to litigate additional warrant/search defects not addressed below | Held: Reversed suppression of RV evidence and remanded so defendant may litigate other suppression issues in trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Goodman, 328 Or. 318 (discusses reviewing facts in support of warrant)
- State v. Castilleja, 345 Or. 255 (standard for reviewing warrant-affidavit sufficiency)
- State v. Huff, 253 Or. App. 480 (user-quantity alone insufficient to infer additional stash at residence)
- State v. Duarte/Knull-Dunagan, 237 Or. App. 13 (deference to magistrate; resolve doubtful cases for issuing magistrate)
- State v. Fronterhouse/Conant, 239 Or. App. 194 (consider the entire excised affidavit under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Henderson, 341 Or. 219 (magistrate may draw reasonable inferences)
- State v. Tallman, 76 Or. App. 715 (additional facts can link possession to distribution/manufacture)
- State v. Sparks, 267 Or. App. 181 (probable cause requires evidence that items will more likely than not be found at location)
- State v. Gonzales, 238 Or. App. 541 (when state succeeds on appeal of suppression, defendant may litigate issues not reached below)