State v. Newsted, 381 P.3d 1025

Police investigated theft of a 2006 green Kawasaki Mule 610 UTV reported stolen from a Coos Bay home on Sept. 3, 2013.
On Sept. 14 a deputy stopped defendant driving a stripped UTV in Coos Bay; defendant claimed he built it and it had no serial number. Deputy photographed the vehicle and cited defendant for driving while suspended.
Sergeant Floyd, investigating the theft, compared the deputy’s photos to internet images of the Kawasaki Mule 610 and noted identical placement of instrumentation (shifting lever, parking brake, steering wheel, safety stickers) consistent with the model’s bench-seat layout.
Floyd observed the same UTV parked at defendant’s residence on Sept. 18 and included photos and defendant’s criminal-history records in an affidavit seeking a search warrant for the residence.
A magistrate issued the warrant; police executed it on Oct. 2 and recovered items reported stolen, including Kawasaki Mule 610 parts. Defendant was charged and moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause tying the vehicle to the victim’s UTV.
The trial court denied suppression; the appellate majority affirmed, holding the affidavit and reasonable inferences supported probable cause. A dissent argued the affidavit failed because it lacked evidence about how common Kawasaki Mules are in Coos Bay and thus could not show it was more likely than not the victim’s UTV.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit established probable cause to issue a warrant to search defendant’s residence for the victim’s stolen UTV and other stolen property	Affidavit plus reasonable inferences (timing, identical instrumentation placement, defendant’s implausible explanation, prior theft-related convictions, and seeing the UTV at defendant’s residence) suffice for probable cause	Affidavit did not tie the UTV in defendant’s possession specifically to the victim’s UTV; model-level features are not unique and affidavit lacked info on how common that model is in Coos Bay, so it cannot show it is more likely than not the same vehicle	Affirmed: a neutral magistrate could reasonably infer probable cause from the affidavit and reasonable inferences drawn from it

State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of search-warrant affidavits)
State v. Duarte/Knull-Dunagan, 237 Or App 13 (courts defer to magistrate and consider reasonable inferences from affidavit)
State v. Goodman, 328 Or 318 (officer training and experience may supply nexus supporting probable cause)
State v. Tropeano, 238 Or App 16 (defendant’s criminal history can assist probable-cause analysis)
State v. Huff, 253 Or App 480 (probable cause requires that it be more likely than not that items will be found at the location searched)