Case Title: State v. Goodman

Citation: 

Docket Number: S45026

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1999-02-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed:  February 26, 1999

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON,

	Petitioner on Review,

	v.

JACKIE ARLIS GOODMAN,

	Respondent on Review.

(CC 95CR2733FE; CA A91979; SC S45026)

	On review from the Court of Appeals.*

	Argued and submitted November 10, 1998.

	Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
argued the cause for petitioner on review. On the petition for
review were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds,
Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney
General.

	Dan Maloney, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause
for respondent on review. With him on the brief on the merits was
Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

	Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van Hoomissen,
Durham, Leeson, and Riggs, Justices.**

	RIGGS, J.

	The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and
reversed in part, and the order of the circuit court is reversed. 
The case is remanded to the circuit court for further
proceedings.

*	Appeal from Douglas County Circuit Court,

	Ronald Poole, Judge.

	152 Or App 83, 952 P2d 558 (1998).

**	Kulongoski, J., did not participate in the consideration or
decision of this case.

	RIGGS, J.

	Defendant was charged with possession, manufacture, and
delivery of a controlled substance.  ORS 475.992.  Police
officers searched defendant's residence pursuant to a search
warrant and discovered evidence of his involvement with a
marijuana growing operation.  Before trial, defendant moved to
suppress that evidence, arguing that the affidavit supporting the
search warrant did not set forth facts sufficient to establish
probable cause for the search.  The trial court agreed and
suppressed the evidence.  The Court of Appeals affirmed in part
and reversed in part.  State v. Goodman, 152 Or App 83, 952 P2d
558 (1998).  We allowed the state's petition for review and now
reverse in part and affirm in part the decision of the Court of
Appeals and reverse the order of the circuit court.

	We take the facts from the Court of Appeals' opinion,
as supplemented by the search warrant affidavit.

		"While on aerial surveillance, a member of the
Douglas County Interagency Narcotics Team (DINT)
observed an outdoor marijuana-growing operation on
forest land belonging to Rosboro Lumber Company.  With
the company's permission, Detective Case of DINT
entered the well-concealed marijuana garden, where he
discovered 13 marijuana plants, a Coleman cooler, a red
and white flannel shirt and a nylon stocking.  DINT
officers installed a video camera at the garden's
concealed entrance.  The camera recorded two persons
coming out of the garden.  One was unidentified; the
other was identified by the affiant as defendant.  On
the videotape, defendant was sporting a blue and white
flannel shirt, a 'cammo' baseball cap, blue jeans, and
white tennis shoes."

Goodman, 152 Or App at 85.

		The following facts from the search warrant affidavit
also are important:  Case informed the affiant, Detective
Stephens, that the marijuana plants in the concealed garden were
being "hand watered."  The garden was extremely well concealed;
the entrance was covered with brush, and the garden could be
reached only by crawling through a 30-foot tunnel in the bushes. 
The videotape showed defendant concealing the entrance to the
tunnel with brush after leaving the garden.  It also showed an
unidentified person in defendant's company carrying a plastic
milk jug.  Stephens and another detective who had viewed the
videotape, Detective Schlenker, both were familiar with defendant
from "numerous contacts" in the past.  Stephens reviewed
Department of Motor Vehicles records, which revealed that
defendant resided at a house on Sunnyside Road in Sutherlin,
approximately eight and one-half miles from the concealed
marijuana garden.

		Stephens's affidavit also described his extensive
training and experience in the investigation of marijuana growing
operations and drug trafficking and set forth facts, averments,
and inferences that he derived from that training and experience. 
Relevant to this case are the following:

		"Additionally, I have personally been involved in
obtaining search warrants, assisting other law
enforcement officers in preparing search warrant
affidavits, the execution of search warrants prepared
and obtained by other law enforcement officers and/or
assisting in the processing of in excess of (10) ten
cases in which it was an outdoor marijuana grow that
was not located on the marijuana grower's property and
the search warrant was for the marijuana grower's
residence.  In each of these cases evidence was found
in the marijuana grower's residence that demonstrated
the person was involved in the manufacture of
marijuana.

		"* * * * *

		"I know from my training and experience that
individuals manufacturing and distributing controlled
substances go to great lengths to avoid detection, or
to avoid loss of their products if detected and
searched. * * * Thus, I have found controlled
substances concealed on the person of the suspect,
within the residence in a variety of hiding places,
within other buildings on the premises, or buried in
containers in the earth or under objects.

		"* * * * *

		"During my experience I have learned that it is
necessary to perform certain acts when cultivating
marijuana such as, but not limited to, using tools to
turn the ground, apply fertilizer, apply water, cut the
plant when it has matured, and for the processing of
the plant into a useable form, which includes removing
the stems and seeds; all of which requires certain
equipment, including but not limited to shovels, rakes,
hoses, watering equipment, fertilizers, chainsaws, and
other cutting tools.

		"Further, it has been my experience that when
marijuana is cultivated that samples of the plant are
taken and dried.  That this drying is done in a
structure to prevent moisture and excessive sunlight
from reaching the plant.

		"* * * * *

		"In addition, when growing marijuana outdoors, the
common practice is to start the plants inside the
residence or hot houses using small flower pots or
cans, damp towels, ultraviolet or grow lights, flat
pans for the placing of the dirt, planting of the
seeds, and maturing or manicuring of the plant.  

		"* * * * *

		"It is also common when growing marijuana to
possess marijuana in various stages of growth and
manicuring.  Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that a
person growing marijuana possesses tools and equipment
for cultivation and marijuana seeds to supply
replacement stock of manicured plants, young plants and
manicured marijuana.

		"* * * * *

		"Additionally, during my experience I have
discovered that persons that grow marijuana outdoors on
property they do not own need a secure location to
process the marijuana.  This is normally their
residence or a structure on their property.

		"* * * * *

		"Through my training and experience I also have
learned that individuals involved in drug or
racketeering related criminal activity almost always
retain records of their drug dealings.  These records,
sometimes coded, usually describe in some detail, drug
purchases, sales or exchanges.  These records,
involving the illegal drug trade are often found
concealed in the homes, vehicles, rented rooms, or on
the persons of the involved individuals.  I have
personally recovered such records from persons who
traffic in controlled substances.

		"Based on my training and experience I know that
more often than not, evidence or fruits of drug or
racketeering activity can often be found in the
residences of persons involved in such activity * * *."

		Based on Stephens's affidavit, a search warrant was
issued for defendant's residence.  During the search conducted
pursuant to that warrant, police seized scales with marijuana
residue, a metal box containing marijuana, loose marijuana and
rolling papers, photographs, a shirt and hat matching those worn
by defendant in the videotape, a plastic bag with marijuana
residue, and over $4,000 in cash.   

		As noted, defendant moved before trial to suppress that
evidence.  The trial court granted the motion in a letter
opinion, stating that it was bound by the Court of Appeals'
opinion in State v. Evans, 119 Or App 44, 849 P2d 539 (1993). 
The trial court explained the rule from Evans by quoting a later
Court of Appeals opinion:

		"[T]he officer's professed knowledge of the common
practices of people who grow, distribute and sell
marijuana did not suffice to furnish the missing facts
that created probable cause that the particular
residence contained marijuana."

State v. Milosevich, 131 Or App 51, 54, 883 P2d 898, rev den 320
Or 492 (1994).  The court concluded that, although it "believe[d]
that Evans was wrongly decided," this case was factually
indistinguishable, and the evidence had to be suppressed. 

		On the state's appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in
part and reversed in part.  As to the marijuana, containers,
scales, hat, and cash, the court affirmed the trial court,
holding that "the affidavit, as was the case in Evans, lacked any
facts providing a nexus linking the marijuana growing operation
to the residence to be searched."  Goodman, 152 Or App at 87. 
However, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
suppression of the shirt that defendant was wearing when he
appeared on the videotape, because the affidavit "clearly
established probable cause to search for items of clothing worn
while defendant was tending the garden."(1)  Id.  

		We allowed the state's petition for review.  For the
reasons that follow, we conclude that the affidavit established
probable cause to search defendant's residence, both for the
clothing he wore when he appeared on the videotape and for other
evidence of his involvement in the marijuana growing operation.

		The issuance of search warrants is governed by ORS
133.545.(2)  Under that statute, application for a search warrant 

	"shall be supported by one or more affidavits
particularly setting forth the facts and circumstances
tending to show that the objects of the search are in
the places, or in the possession of the individuals, to
be searched."

ORS 133.545(4).  If the judge reviewing the application and
supporting affidavit finds on the basis of the record made before
the judge that

		"there is probable cause to believe that the
search will discover things specified in the
application and subject to seizure under ORS 133.535,
the judge shall issue a search warrant * * *."

ORS 135.555(2).  

		Our inquiry into the sufficiency of an affidavit
supporting a search warrant involves two questions:

	"(1) whether there is reason to believe that the facts
stated are true, and (2) whether the facts and
circumstances disclosed by the affidavit, if true, are
sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the
search requested."

State v. Villagran, 294 Or 404, 408, 657 P2d 1223 (1983).  Here,
there is no dispute about the first question; defendant did not
move to controvert any of the statements in the affidavit and
does not challenge them here.  Accordingly, our inquiry is
limited to whether the uncontroverted facts in the affidavit
establish probable cause to search defendant's house. 

		"The legislature has not defined the term probable
cause to search, as it has probable cause to arrest."  State v.
Anspach, 298 Or 375, 380, 692 P2d 602 (1984).  In Anspach, this
court concluded that "[t]he probable cause requirement means that
the facts upon which the warrant is premised must lead a
reasonable person to believe that seizable things will probably
be found in the location to be searched."  Id. at 380-81.  "When
addressing probable cause issues in cases where a warrant was
issued, we confine our analysis to a 'common-sense view of the
affidavit' filed by the police officer."  State v. Moylett, 313
Or 540, 552, 836 P2d 1329 (1992) (quoting State v. Coffey, 309 Or
342, 346, 788 P2d 424 (1990)).

		In cases involving warrants to search buildings for
evidence of outdoor marijuana growing operations, the affidavit
must contain facts and objective observations sufficient to
permit a reasonable judge to conclude that there is probable
cause to believe (1) that the residents or owners of the building
have some relationship to the growing operation; and (2) that
marijuana, tools, or evidence of processing and sale of marijuana
probably are in the building for which the warrant is sought. 
Anspach, 298 Or at 381.  We address those requirements in turn.  

		The Court of Appeals held that there was "no question
that the first requirement [was] satisfied" in this case. 
Goodman, 152 Or App at 86.  Defendant argues that the Court of
Appeals' holding was error, because the facts alleged in the
affidavit are insufficient to establish the required nexus
between defendant and the marijuana garden.  

		We agree with the Court of Appeals.  Stephens's
affidavit demonstrates that defendant was aware of the location
of a well-concealed marijuana garden in a remote area, that he
crawled through a hidden 30-foot tunnel through bushes to reach
that garden, and that he concealed the entrance to the garden
when he departed.  Defendant contends, however, that his
knowledge of, and one-time presence at, the garden do not
demonstrate that he was connected with criminal activity on the
site.  He also argues that his presence at the site does not lead
to a reasonable inference that he was tending the garden.

		Anspach requires that the affidavit establish probable
cause to believe that defendant has "some relationship" to the
garden.  298 Or at 381.  Probable cause is not certainty; "there
is a vast difference between proof of probable cause and proof of
guilt * * *."  State v.  Tacker, 241 Or 597, 601, 407 P2d 851
(1965).  As the Court of Appeals concluded, the facts in
Stephens's affidavit and the inferences that fairly may be drawn
from those facts are sufficient to establish probable cause to
believe defendant was connected to the garden.  Accordingly, the
affidavit satisfies the first requirement of Anspach.

		We turn to the second requirement from Anspach and
address the question whether the affidavit was sufficient to
establish probable cause to believe that marijuana, tools, or
evidence of marijuana processing or sale would be found at
defendant's residence.  As noted above, the Court of Appeals
answered that question in defendant's favor.  Goodman, 152 Or App
at 87.

		We disagree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion. 
First, the affidavit established probable cause to believe that
items of physical evidence of the growing operation -- tools,
marijuana, records, or other items related to the cultivation,
processing or distribution of the crop -- likely would be found
at some place other than the garden.  Stephens stated in his
affidavit that he knew based on his training and experience that
cultivating marijuana requires tools and fertilizer.  No
fertilizer or implements of cultivation were found at the garden. 
Stephens also stated that he knew based on his training and
experience that cultivated marijuana must be processed indoors
before being distributed or used.  Officers found no harvested
marijuana or mechanisms for processing it at the garden. 
Further, Stephens stated in the affidavit that marijuana growers
typically maintain records of their crops and distribution in
houses or other secure indoor locations. 

		Those are facts, or "quant[a] of information," Coffey,
309 Or at 346, that contribute to the affidavit.  Defendant had
the opportunity to controvert the facts in the affidavit and
chose not to attempt to do so.  Taken together, those facts lead
to the reasonable conclusion that physical evidence of the
growing operation would be found somewhere other than the garden;
specifically, at a secure indoor location.

		The question remains whether it was reasonable to
conclude that any of that evidence probably would be found at the
particular indoor location for which the warrant was sought,
defendant's residence.  The Court of Appeals ruled in defendant's
favor on that point, concluding that the affidavit "lacked any
facts providing a nexus linking the marijuana growing operation
to the residence to be searched."  Goodman, 152 Or App at 87.  We
disagree.  The first fact linking the garden and the residence is
that defendant, whose connection to the garden was demonstrated
in the affidavit, lived at the residence to be searched.  That
fact links the garden and the house; in other words, the facts in
the affidavit connecting the garden to defendant and defendant to
the house connect the garden to the house.  By extension,
defendant also provides a link between the house and items of
physical evidence from the garden.  See Villagran, 294 Or at 415
(the defendant's connection to marijuana in Lookingglass and to a
house in Umpqua provided probable cause to search the house for
evidence relating to the marijuana).

		Indeed, there is more. Defendant's residence also is
linked to evidence relating to the garden by reasonable
inferences drawn from the facts in Stephens's affidavit.  As
noted, the affidavit establishes a high likelihood that evidence
relating to the garden would be found in a secure indoor
location.  Defendant's residence is such a location; the
affidavit makes clear that defendant resided at a house in the
vicinity of the garden.  It was reasonable to infer from that
combination of facts and circumstances that some or all of the
evidence from the garden probably would be found at that house.

Here, as in Villagran, the affidavit establishes defendant's
connection to the growing operation, the probable existence of
physical evidence relating to that operation, and a connection
between the operation and the residence to be searched. 

		Finally, we note that the Court of Appeals in this
case, as in Evans, appears to have discounted portions of the
affidavit for the reason that facts derived from training and
experience cannot contribute to a factual nexus between a
residence, a defendant, and a remote grow location.  Goodman, 152
Or App at 86.  Facts derived from training and experience may
contribute that necessary factual nexus in a determination of
probable cause.  In Coffey, for example, the officer's knowledge
that a particular type of packaging frequently was used in the
sale of cocaine was treated as a fact contributing to the
sufficiency of the affidavit.  309 Or at 347.  In State v.
Herbert, 302 Or 237, 242, 729 P2d 547 (1986), the officer's
knowledge that paperfolds of a particular shape typically are
used as containers for drugs weighed in this court's holding that
the officer had probable cause to seize the paperfold.  In State
v. Westlund, 302 Or 225, 231, 729 P2d 541 (1986), the officer's
"testimony regarding his experience and training in drug
investigations and his '90 percent' certainty that the white
powder visible inside the transparent vial was a controlled
substance" established probable cause for a warrantless search of
the contents of the vial.  Those cases demonstrate that facts
derived from training and experience may be considered in
determining whether probable cause exists.

		We do not here suggest that an officer's expertise,
unconnected to objective facts derived from other sources, will
satisfy constitutional requirements.  This is not such a case. 
Here, the officer's expertise is used only to provide a criminal
law nexus to a series of other, separately verified facts which -- absent the officer's explanation -- could be understood to be
innocent.  Expertise is a permissible way to establish such a
nexus, and this case is an illustration of circumstances in which
such expertise may be used in that way.

		The affidavit in this case establishes probable cause
for a warrant to search defendant's residence for evidence of the
marijuana growing operation.  Consequently, it was error to
suppress the evidence obtained during the search conducted
pursuant to that warrant.  

		The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in
part and reversed in part, and the order of the circuit court is
reversed.  The case is remanded to the circuit court for further
proceedings.

1. 	The Court of Appeals' analysis regarding the shirt
would appear to apply equally to the hat that defendant was
wearing in the videotape, which, as noted above, also was
discovered in the search of defendant's residence.  However, in
what we assume was an oversight, the court did not reverse the
portion of the trial court's order suppressing the evidence of
the hat.

2. 	The state constitutional basis for the warrant
requirement is Article I, section 9, which provides, in part:

	"[N]o warrant shall issue but upon probable cause,
supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the person or
thing to be seized."

The parties premise their arguments solely on the state
constitution and statutes.