Case ID: or-app_43/html/0515-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      THORNTON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted September 14,
    affirmed December 10, 1979
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JAMES EDWARD MARQUARDT, Appellant.
    
    (No. 24540, CA 14367)
    603 P2d 1198
    Warren John West, Bend, argued the cause for jellant. With him on the brief were Forcum, West & jck, and Leonard C. Parker, Bend.
    W. Benny Won, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, lied the cause for respondent. With him on the brief re James A. Redden, Attorney General, and Walter Barrie, Solicitor General, Salem.
    
      Before Tanzer, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Campbell, Judges.
    THORNTON, J.
   THORNTON, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction of possession of a ntrolled substance (ORS 475.992(4)) and assigns as ror the denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of search of his house on the ground that the affidavit rming the basis for the issuance of the warrant Lowed on its face that the information contained in e affidavit was stale. The warrant was sought and sued on February 3, 1979. The allegations of the ■fidavit came largely from personal observations ade at the same house on the alleged date of "Februy 03, 1978.

Relying on the rule that probable cause must be termined from the "four corners” of the affidavit, the information properly before the magistrate, fendant contends the information was stale as a atter of law and the warrant invalid. This argument without merit. It hardly seems likely that the af-tnt would wait exactly one year from the date he tained his information and then seek a warrant at p.m. Based on this circumstance, the magistrate, if noticed the error at all, could properly conclude that was a clerical error and that the date referred to was bruary 3, 1979. There is no contention that the 'idavit was otherwise insufficient to establish probable cause. The error was a result of the haste of minal investigation and to treat it in any other inner is to apply a hypertechnical standard of review disapproved by the United States Supreme Court. United States v. Ventresca, 380 US 102, 108, 85 S Ct 741, 13 L Ed 2d 684 (1965). See also State v. Diaz, 29 Or App 523, 528, n 3, 564 P2d 1066 (1977).

Affirmed.