Court Opinion

ID: 9552013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:03:29.3819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:25.590393
License: Public Domain

LANGTRY, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent because the majority disposes of the time element of "within * * * 48 hours” between seeing of the single sale of narcotics, with nothing more, and the making of the affidavit as being unimportant. As the *413majority notes an elapse of 48 hours in such cases has been held not to make the information in an affidavit become too stale to justify the issuance of a search warrant. See cases cited in majority opinion. However, that does not automatically remove the time element from consideration.
In the automobile search cases the majority cites, the defendants at the very moment of searches were seen with the contraband. That certainly warrants a strong suspicion there is more in the same place. But would it, standing starkly alone, warrant as strong a suspicion that the contraband is still in the vehicle 48 hours later? I think not.
In State v. Ingram, 251 Or 324, 327, 445 P2d 503 (1968), the Oregon Supreme Court stated:
"* * * Whether the lapse of time is deemed to have been so long that it reasonably cannot be inferred that contraband is present at the premises will depend upon all the circumstances * * (Emphasis supplied.)
The court then cited with approval People v. Siemieniec, 368 Mich 405, 118 NW2d 430, 100 ALR2d 522 (1962), where there was related in the affidavit only one sale, as at bar, four days before the application for the search warrant, and it was held that did not justify the issuance of the warrant. Quoted therefrom is the statement that the "warrant may issue only upon a showing that reasonable cause exists to believe illegal activity is occurring at the time the warrant is sought * * (Emphasis supplied.) 368 Mich at 407.
The trial judge at bar said:
"If there had been anything * * * that said he had a package of heroin which he had divided in half, or if he sold me heroin and put it back, or a green bag out of which I saw a syringe, or something like that, but there is nothing beyond the fact that one sale occurred, and while it does have a probative value, I don’t think it has enough probative value to warrant a search of the house ”
I agree with him, and respectfully dissent.