Court Opinion

ID: 9850456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:57:40.46048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:37.520020
License: Public Domain

BUTTLER, P. J.,
dissenting.
The majority would require that we accept the findings of the trial court under Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 443 P2d 621 (1968), regardless of the sufficiency of the evidence to support them. Here, the boilerplate portion of the affidavit stated that Sgt. Pendergrass had “observed growing marijuana plants” during an aerial surveillance. The question is whether that statement is true. Because the evidence does not support its truthfulness, I dissent.
At the hearing on defendant’s motion to controvert, Pendergrass’ testimony, so far as it is relevant to his observation of growing marijuana, is:
“Q. Did you fill out a report afterwards to the effect that you had probable cause to believe that marijuana was being cultivated?
“A. Yes, I did.
*456“Q. Did you give that to I guess it would be Mr. Looney, Sergeant Looney, thereafter for him to use in drafting his affidavit?
“A. Yes, I did.
“Q. Did the two of you discuss any of the factors involved in why you had probable cause to believe there was marijuana?
“A. I believe I told him that — basically described the place to him, showed the photographs to him, and gave him the map that the cartographers, the aerial photographs, the surveyor’s map obtained from the Clerk’s office.
“Q. Did you give him any other information regarding your flight over the Cole’s residence?
“A. Just the fact that the location that it was in a greenhouse.
<<* * * * *
“Q. You don’t recall when you talked to Sergeant Looney, how long after the flight it was?
“A. I talked to Detective Looney after the flight procedure, after we have the photographs developed. On developing those photographs we then plot them on the maps that we have and then we turn that over to him. * * *
* * * *
“Q. To try and keep things brief, in your observation that determines that you have probable cause to believe that marijuana is being cultivated, what are the factors that you look at to make that determination?
“A. Basically configuration, color and —
“Q. 'What do you mean by configuration?
“A. Just the type, the outline type of thing. It’s not something you can see leaves or anything specific, but you’re looking at the terrain, you can differentiate the colors, you can differentiate tall trees from smaller plants, the combination of that plus the experience of seeing yourself the ability to observe the marijuana.
“Q. In this case there were — there was a greenhouse type structure, I believe is a structure that appears to be a greenhouse the way it is phrased in the affidavit. Could you see directly into that, or was there a cover over that, do you recall?
“A. My recollection, there was a cover, a plastic, appeared to be a plastic cover over that.
*457“Q. Could you make out any individual plants inside that plastic cover?
“A. I don’t believe I could. Color, configuration and size.”
On that evidence, the trial court found that the “aerial identification of growing marijuana plants was achieved.” The majority states that the record supports that finding.1 It then concludes that the trial court could “conclude that there was probable cause to believe that marijuana was growing in the greenhouse,” 78 Or App at 455, which is not the issue.
In my opinion, Pendergrass’ quoted testimony, even when considered with the photographs admitted in evidence, cannot support the finding that identification of growing marijuana plants was achieved. To the contrary, and to his credit, Pendergrass never stated that he had identified growing marijuana plants.2 He was explaining, generally, how he could identify marijuana from the air, not that he did so in this case. That is consistent with his conclusory statement in his official report that he had probable cause to believe that marijuana was being cultivated on defendant’s property. Defendant called Pendergrass as a witness. After the quoted testimony was given, the state did not pursue the witness’ testimony concerning his identification of the marijuana plants. Rather, it pursued other reasons why Pendergrass may have had probable cause to believe that marijuana was growing on defendant’s property. It may be that, by considering *458other factors, such as the location of the greenhouse (generally concealed from public view), Pendergrass thought that he had probable cause to believe that marijuana was growing on defendant’s property, which is all that he stated in his report. However, the other factors were not set forth in the affidavit as they might have applied to defendant’s property, and “corrected” evidence may not be considered as supporting the sufficiency of the affidavit. State v. Harp, 299 Or 1, 9, 697 P2d 548 (1984).
The problem arises here because Looney, the affiant, used a preprinted form that contained the statement that “_* * * reported to me * * * that * * * he observed growing marijuana plants.” There was no other appropriate blank space in the form to set forth some other bases for Pendergrass’ belief that he had probable cause to conclude that marijuana was growing on defendant’s property. Accordingly, at the hearing on the motion to controvert, the only way in which the court could deny the motion was to find that the statement in question was true, not that Pendergrass may have had other reasons to support his report that he had probable cause. The record may support the latter but it does not support the former.
Ball v. Gladden, supra, does not require that we accept blindly a trial court finding that is not supported by sufficient evidence. In my opinion, no reasonable trier of fact could find, on this record, that “aerial identification of growing marijuana plants was achieved.”
Because the statement that Pendergrass “observed growing marijuana plants” is not accurate, it must be deleted from the affidavit. After that statement has been deleted, we are left with a report of an aerial identification of a greenhouse by a police officer trained in identifying growing marijuana. That information is insufficient, as a matter of law, to conclude that there is probable cause to believe marijuana is growing inside. I would hold, therefore, that the affidavit was insufficient to support the warrant authorizing the search of defendant’s property and that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized.
Accordingly, I dissent.

 As the majority points out, the court also found:
“The defendants have failed to show that any statements contained in the affidavits were made with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, or were intentionally false.”
The majority states that that finding is supported by the record. Although I find it unnecessary to decide that question, I note that Looney testified that he equated the statement in Pendergrass’ official report that “I have probable cause to believe marijuana is growing” with “I observed growing marijuana.” Taking that at face value, it may be questionable whether the statement (preprinted) in the affidavit was made in reckless disregard for its truthfulness.

 When asked if he could make out any individual plants in the greenhouse, he answered: “I don’t believe I could. Color, configuration and size.” Even if we assume that, by that response, he meant to say that he had observed the color, configuration and size of what was growing in the greenhouse, that would be inconsistent with his clear statement that he could not see the plants in the greenhouse from over 500 feet in the air. Accordingly, by his own testimony he could not have made out their configuration and size, other than that they were not large trees. At most, taking his testimony as a whole, he could have observed their color; however, he did not say that the color, in itself, was sufficient to identify marijuana plants.