Court Opinion

ID: 9608538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:14:28.705544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:46.466329
License: Public Domain

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
specially concurring.
I join in the result announced by the majority.
This court allowed review in this case to consider whether the affiant’s use of binoculars constitutes an unlawful search under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment. The court unanimously concludes that, even with the information obtained by the use of the binoculars, the affidavit did not establish probable cause to believe that there was evidence of criminal activity in defendants’ home. Therefore, the court does not reach the question that prompted us to allow review. Accordingly, it would be entirely appropriate for this court to dismiss review *15in this case as havingbeen improvidently allowed. The majority believes otherwise, however, and so I write separately to note another aspect of this case that troubles me.
The affiant’s assertion that he saw a “green reflection” in the window, a large amount of “green foliage” covering the window, and that the color of what he saw was “consistent with’ ’ marijuana is, to say the least, troublesome. After looking with 7 x 35 binoculars, the affiant could swear only that he observed “a stem consistent in color and shape with that of a marijuana plant.” In the context of this case and considering the averments in the affidavit about the affiant’s expertise in recognizing marijuana, I believe that a reasonable person well might conclude that the affiant was only guessing about what he saw. That is not enough to provide probable cause to search someone’s home. Although an affiant need not be infallible, an affiant must be forthcoming. In this case, I believe that, at a minimum, the affiant had to state something to the effect that “based on my education, training, and experience (described elsewhere in this affidavit), I believe that what I saw was marijuana.” The affiant in this case did not do that.
Gillette and Unis, JJ., join in this opinion.