Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD SCOTT KING, Defendant-Respondent; STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES BRIAN KING, Defendant-Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1988-04-13
Citations: 90 Or. App. 440
Docket Number: 87-0162; CA A45519; 87-0191; CA A45520
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD SCOTT KING, Defendant-Respondent. STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES BRIAN KING, Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Rossman, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 90
Pages: 440–441

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 25,
reversed and remanded April 13, 1988
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD SCOTT KING, Defendant-Respondent. STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES BRIAN KING, Defendant-Respondent.
(87-0162; CA A45519 (Control))
(87-0191; CA A45520)
(Cases Consolidated)
752 P2d 869
Martin C. Dolan, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
No appearance for defendant-respondent James Brian King.
No appearance for defendant-respondent Donald Scott King.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Rossman, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In these criminal cases, consolidated for appeal, each of the two defendants was charged with the manufacture and possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. The trial court's order suppressed all evidence resulting from the search of the defendants' house on the grounds that the information provided by a named informant in the search warrant affidavit was "stale" and, thus, did not provide the probable cause necessary for the issuance of the search warrant. The state appeals. We reverse.
Whether the length of time that elapsed causes the basis for a warrant as described by an affiant to become "stale" will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts asserted in the affidavit indicated that there was a large scale, on-going drug operation from which a magistrate, after considering all of the relevant factors contained within the affidavit, could reasonably infer that the contraband was still on the premises.
Reversed and remanded.