State v. Miser, 463 P.3d 599

Defendant Casey Miser conditionally pleaded guilty to charges arising from an alleged methamphetamine distribution operation and appealed the denial of his suppression motion as to a search of his workplace.
Investigation began from archived texts of Monica Flake that included messages from a phone number later linked to Miser; detectives obtained a pen register/trap-and-trace on his phone and a GPS tracker on his truck.
Surveillance and device data showed frequent calls/texts with known drug-offenders, short parking-lot stops and brief meetings consistent with street-level drug transactions, and prior drug convictions for Miser and some contacts.
The search-warrant affidavit (for Miser’s workplace limited to workstation, vehicles, and office space) described: the company van being driven to Miser’s home, the van observed at an AutoZone where Flake was seen, and occasions where Miser left work then made stops and conduct investigators interpreted as drug activity.
Miser did not contest the veracity of affidavit facts on appeal; he argued the affidavit failed to establish the necessary nexus between his workplace and evidence of drug crimes.
The court affirmed the denial of suppression, holding that under the totality of circumstances the affidavit supported probable cause that evidence of drug activity would be found at Miser’s workplace.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit established probable cause to search Miser’s workplace	The affidavit’s totality (movements, phone records, van use, interactions with Flake and known offenders) created a reasonable inference that evidence would be at the workplace	Observations of the workplace were limited; affidavit failed to show a sufficient nexus between the workplace and the alleged drug activity	Affirmed — probable cause existed based on the totality of circumstances; nexus sufficiently established

State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255 (2008) (standard of review for probable-cause determinations on warrant affidavits)
State v. Chase, 219 Or App 387 (2008) (review affidavits in a commonsense, nontechnical manner)
State v. Van Osdol, 290 Or App 902 (2018) (probable-cause nexus elements: crime, evidence, and place to be searched)
State v. Webber, 281 Or App 342 (2016) (probable cause requires facts creating a nexus between place and objects sought)
State v. Huff, 253 Or App 480 (2012) (probability standard: more than possibility, less than certainty)
State v. Klingler, 284 Or App 534 (2017) (evaluate the totality of circumstances)
State v. Henderson, 341 Or 219 (2006) (resolve doubtful or marginal cases in favor of warrants)
State v. Goodman, 328 Or 318 (1999) (when affidavit facts are uncontroverted, review focuses on whether they establish probable cause)
State v. Villagran, 294 Or 404 (1983) (circumstances may give probable cause to search multiple locations where evidence may be found)