Title: State v. Spicer

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

456 P.2d 965 (1969)
STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
Roy Lee SPICER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department 2.
Argued and Submitted December 4, 1968.
Decided July 16, 1969.
John Toran, Jr., Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Jacob B. Tanzer, Asst. Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, Dist. Atty., Portland.
Before PERRY, C.J., and McALLISTER, GOODWIN, HOLMAN and MENGLER[*], JJ.
PERRY, Chief Justice.
The defendant Roy Lee Spicer was convicted of the crime of illegal possession of narcotics and appeals.
On the 17th day of November, 1966, the following affidavit to procure a search warrant was filed before a magistrate:
A return was made which stated that "marihuana" was found on the person of the defendant and in his place of residence.
The defendant moved to suppress the evidence found, contending that the affidavit was insufficient to support a finding by the magistrate of probable cause. This is the sole assignment of error.
"Probable cause" in an affidavit to procure a search warrant is much less than proof beyond a "reasonable doubt" which is necessary to convict of crime. Therefore, hearsay evidence may be the basis for the issuance of a warrant if there is a substantial showing of the reliability of the hearsay. State v. Tacker, 241 Or. 597, 407 P.2d 851, 10 A.L.R.3d 355; United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S. Ct. 741, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684; McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S. Ct. 1056, 18 L. Ed. 2d 62.
The affidavit presented to the magistrate relates that the informer told the affiant that he had made several purchases of marijuana from Roy Spicer at a house located in Portland, Oregon, "over a period of time since last summer." The affidavit then recites factually what the affiant did to corroborate the information given him by the informant.
Where hearsay is corroborated by a recital of facts within the personal knowledge of the affiant which would lead a reasonably cautious person to believe the informant to be reliable, then the hearsay is sufficient to justify probable cause for the issuance of a warrant or probable cause to arrest. State v. Henry, Or., 437 P.2d 851; State v. Penney, 242 Or. 470, 410 P.2d 226.
The defendant also seems to contend that a lapse of five days between the purchase of the marijuana and the signing of the affidavit will not support the officer's statement that he has good reason to believe that marijuana is on the person or the premises of the defendant at the time the warrant was issued.
In State v. Ingram, Or., 445 P.2d 503, we held that a single purchase of Heroin made on January 9, 1967, standing alone was not sufficient to support a reasonable conclusion that there was Heroin on the premises on February 8th, a lapse of almost a month.
In the matter before us, the affidavit discloses that the informer, whose reliability was tested, stated he had made several purchases of marijuana over quite a long period of time from the defendant at the same place where he purchased for the officer. This, it would seem, would impress a reasonable mind with the thought that the possession of marijuana at the defendant's home was a continuing business enterprise and, in the absence of some fact that would disclose otherwise, the affidavit should be sustained. "* * * [A]ffidavits for search warrants * * * must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a commonsense and realistic fashion." United States v. Ventresca, supra, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S. Ct. 741, 746.
The judgment is affirmed.
[*]  MENGLER, J., did not participate in the decision of this case.