Opinion ID: 1445104
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The second and third blood samples

Text: Parks obtained a search warrant before asking hospital personnel to extract the second and third blood samples. At issue is whether that warrant was based on probable cause to search defendant for evidence of alcohol. ORS 133.555(2) provides: If the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of ORS 133.535 and that, on the basis of the record made before the judge, 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   . 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 P.2d 602 (1984). [4] This court has determined from the commentary to ORS 133.555(2) that the statute requires 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, 692 P.2d 602. 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. Coffey, 309 Or. 342, 346, 788 P.2d 424 (1990). After reviewing Parks' affidavit, we conclude that the affidavit establishes probable cause to search defendant for evidence of alcohol. Parks' affidavit asserts four facts: (1) defendant's breath had a strong odor of alcohol; (2) defendant admitted to consuming three gin and tonics sometime before the accident; (3) defendant rear-ended a vehicle while it was stopped in a turn lane; and (4) the officer, based on his personal observations, believed that defendant was under the influence of intoxicants. The essence of defendant's argument is that these facts do not show that he was affected to a perceptible degree by the alcohol at the time of the accident. We disagree. Given defendant's admission of alcohol consumption, Parks' assertion that defendant's breath had a strong odor of alcohol, the rear-end collision, and the officer's opinion that, at the time the officer applied for the warrant, defendant was under the influence, it was reasonable for the issuing magistrate to infer that the alcohol had affected defendant to a perceptible degree and that some of the alcohol would still be in defendant's person. Defendant's blood alcohol level could be relevant to the assault and criminal mischief charges. The issuing magistrate was therefore reasonable in concluding from the facts recited in Parks' affidavit that defendant had committed criminal offenses as to which defendant's blood alcohol level would be relevant and that alcohol would probably be found in his person. The warrant was supported by probable cause under Oregon Constitution, Article I, section 9. [5] The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed in part and affirmed in part. The judgment of the district court is affirmed as to the charge of driving under the influence of intoxicants and as to the first blood sample with respect to the charges of assault and criminal mischief. It is reversed as to the second and third blood samples with respect to the charges of assault and criminal mischief. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.