Dеfendant appeals his conviction for the illegal possession of marihuana under former ORS 474.020. He assigns as error the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized in a search of defendant’s residence pursuant to a search warrant.
*252 The issuance of the search warrant was based on the following affidavit:
“I, Richard Grossnicldaus, depose and state:
“That I am a deputy sheriff in Linn County Oregon and hаve been so employed for five and one half years.
“That in the course of my employment I have had courses in drug identification * * *. That I have had numerous personal contacts with drugs as a part of my regular employment with the Linn County Sheriff’s Office and have had particular contact with marijuana, and have had numerous opportunities to observe items which have been chemically tested and found to be marijuana;
“That on March 19, 1971 at about 8:00 P.M. I was contacted by an individual whom I know to be a resident of the Mehama area, and that on that date this individual informed me that he could make a purchase of marijuana at the Thacker residence at 410 South First Street, Mill City, Oregon.
“That on March 20, 1971 at 1:50 P.M. I again was contacted by this individual and an agreement was made to attempt to purchase the marijuana at the 410 South First Street address.
“That I, in the presence of Cpl. Thomas Drvnan of the Oregon State Police, at 1:50 P.M. on March 20, 1971, did throughly [sic] search this individual and his vehicle and found no marijuana.
“That following the search of the individual and the vehicle at approximately 2:00 P.M. the individual drove in his vehiсle to the 410 South First Street address, arriving there at approximately 2:09 P.M, and was observed arriving by Cpl. Dry-nan and Chief of Police Don Gillenwater of Mill City;
“That Cpl. Drynan and Chief Gillenwater watched the 410 South First Street address untill [sic] this individual left at 3:11 P.M., March 20, *253 1971, and that at 3:25 P.M., March 20? 1971, this individual contacted me and at that time had in his posession [sic] a plastic baggy [sic] containing approximately 12 grams оf a substance I believe to be marijuana;
“That the location at which this individual contacted me was near the H & H Cedаr Products at 3:25 P.M., a distance of approximately 3 miles from the 410 First Street address, and this location was the meeting plaсe arranged before the individual left my presence at 2:00 P.M., March 20, 1971;
“That the individual stated that he had purchased this marijuana at the 410 South First Street address and also stated that while he was there he had observed the sale of a similar quantity of marijuana to another person, as well as the sale of some pills in a plastic bag, both sold to the same person at a price of $26.00;
“That I believe there is now marijuana at the residence at 410 South First Street in Mill City, Oregon, and I make this affidavit for the purpose of obtaining a search warrant for said residence.”
There was no record made of the hearing on the motion to suppress. However, a stipulation was made that the points of fact in the case were as related by Deputy Grossnicldaus in the affidavit. Our review of the motion to suppress is limited to the question of whether the facts statеd on the face of the affidavit were sufficient to furnish probable cause for the issuance of the seareh warrаnt.
The defendant alleges that there was no showing of probable cause because the reliability of the informant wаs not established. We disagree. The reliability of an informant may be established by the independent corroboration of his infоrmation, as well as by a recital that he has previously proven reliable.
*254 In the present case Deputy Grossnicklаus searched the informant and his car and found no marihuana. At approximately 2 p.m. the informant left the officer’s prеsence and drove to 410 South First Street. He arrived at approximately 2:09 p.m. His arrival was observed by Cpl. Drynan and Chief Gillenwаter, who watched the premises until the informant left at 3:11 p.m. The informant contacted Deputy Grossnicklaus at a preаrranged meeting place approximately three miles from the First Street address at 3:25 p.m. He had in his possession aрproximately 12 grams of a substance which Deputy Grossnicklaus believed to be marihuana. The informant stated that he had рurchased it at 410 South First Street.
In assessing the reliability of an informant, we have previously found that the fact that the informant turned over to the police the marihuana which he claimed to have purchased was persuasive evidence of his reliability.
State v. Evans,
In addition the officers determined that the informant had no marihuana in his possession at the initiation of the transaction and kept the residence under surveillance while the informant was inside. While the facts in this case are not as strong аs in
State v. Spicer,
Although the time lapse in the surveillance makes it possible that the marihuana was obtained enroute, *255 rather than at the First Street residence, the determination of reliability involves a balancing of probabilities. The short lapse in the surveillance, without more, did not destroy the probative value of the verification procedures employed here by the police. The corroboration of the informant’s statement was sufficient to lеad a reasonably cautious person to believe the information to be reliable. We find that the facts disclosed on the face of the affidavit justified a finding of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.
Therе is no merit to the defendant’s further contention that the warrant was rendered invalid because the police, without any еxplanation, waited nine days before executing the warrant. The warrant was executed within the 10-day period allowеd by OES 141.100. If the defendant wishes to raise the contention that probable cause has been extinguished by a delay in execution within the statutory limitations, it is incumbent upon him to bear the burden of proof on the issue.
See, State v. Elkins,
Affirmed.