Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DEBORAH ANN BULCAO, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1977-12-05
Citations: 31 Or. App. 1017
Docket Number: No. 37643, CA 8621
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DEBORAH ANN BULCAO, Appellant.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Tanzer and Roberts, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 31
Pages: [1017]–[1019]

Head Matter:
Argued November 15,
reversed and remanded for new trial December 5, 1977
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DEBORAH ANN BULCAO, Appellant.
(No. 37643, CA 8621)
571 P2d 920
J. F. Ouderkirk, Newport, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Donald L. Paillette, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Attorney General, and Al J. Laue, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Tanzer and Roberts, Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, having been convicted of criminal activity in drugs by possessing more than one ounce of marihuana, ORS 167.207, appeals, contending that her motion to suppress the physical evidence should have been allowed on the grounds that the affidavit for the search warrant which led to the seizure of the marihuana in question did not contain sufficient information to establish the reliability of an unnamed informant. The state relies upon State v. Broderick, 14 Or App 69, 511 P2d 1281 (1973), in which we held, relying on United States v. Harris, 403 US 573, 91 S Ct 2075, 29 L Ed 2d 723 (1971), that admissions against penal interest made by an unnamed informant were sufficient to establish reliability. Here, unlike in Broderick, the most that can be said for the statements attributed to the informant is that by indulging in considerable speculation it is possible to construe his statements as conceivably including admissions against interest. This is not enough.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.