Opinion ID: 1131281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State v. Viar

Text: Following a hearing on defendant Viar's motion to suppress, the trial court made the following findings: 1.) [The police officer who observed the marijuana] is an experienced drug investigator and well qualified in the identification of marijuana from aerial surveillance. 2.) [The officer] by aerial surveillance on 8-25-87 and 9-13-87, observed marijuana growing on defendant's property 100 yards from defendant's residence. The observations were made without the use of a telescope or binoculars. The plants were photographed with a telescopic lens. [2] 3.) The purpose of the flights by helicopter was to search for growing marijuana gardens. 4.) The flights did not violate federal or state flight regulations. The helicopter flew at an altitude of 500 to 700 feet in the rural area of defendant's property. 5.) The defendant had attempted to conceal the growing marijuana and it was not visible from any public or private roadway. Defendant Viar's motion to suppress evidence seized following the aerial observation and resulting search warrant was denied, and he was found guilty by the trial court of manufacture of a controlled substance and delivery of a controlled substance. Defendants in all three cases appealed their convictions, arguing to the Court of Appeals that the trial courts erred in denying their respective motions to suppress and to controvert. The Court of Appeals, in separate per curiam opinions, reversed the judgment of conviction in each case and remanded, citing its opinion in State v. Ainsworth, 95 Or.App. 240, 770 P.2d 58 (1989). State v. Gohring, 95 Or.App. 746, 770 P.2d 614 (1989); State v. Session, 96 Or.App. 363, 772 P.2d 958 (1989); State v. Viar, 95 Or.App. 744, 770 P.2d 614 (1989). We subsequently allowed the state's petition for review in State v. Ainsworth, supra , and issued an opinion. State v. Ainsworth, 310 Or. 613, 801 P.2d 749 (1990).