Court Opinion

ID: 9536578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:02:48.605788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:47.461031
License: Public Domain

LEE, J.,
dissenting.
This is a close case but I believe the majority has reached the wrong conclusion in part III of the decision.
The majority states that most of the first three paragraphs of the affidavit① do “* * * not even re*504motely tend to establish probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed * * In my opinion, those first three paragraphs do recite the highly pertinent factor of the officer’s training and experience in the very area in question—manufacture of illegal dangerous drugs. This expertise provides a *505highly relevant factor for evaluation of the remaining nncontroverted facts and should not he disregarded.
In item (1) of its summary of the facts concerning the “press,” the majority finds that “* * * [t]he affidavit implies, without directly stating, that Officer Hostick believes such a machine could be used to press illegal drugs into pill form.” More accurate*506ly, the officer stated, in paragraph three of the affidavit, that a press was “necessary” to manufacture the drugs into pill form, and, in paragraphs four and five, that he was told by two named informants that a press was seen on the defendant’s premises. Obviously, the officer could not state with certainty, under the penalties of perjury, that the “* * * machine could be used to press illegal drugs into pill form” when he had never seen it.
In item (2) of its summary of the facts, the majority mentions only that there are beakers, “jars, and other glassware” in defendant’s kitchen/pantry whereas the affidavit stated that Mrs. Dietz had seen * * numerous glass equipment which she described as beekers [sic], jars and other glassware * * (Emphasis added.) Surely, the quantity of “glass equipment” coupled with the officer’s training and experience increases the probability that it was being used for illegal rather than legitimate purposes.
Regarding item (3) of the majority’s summary of the facts concerning “powdered materials,” in my opinion it was not necessary that Officer Hostick set forth a “description” of them. It was sufficient that his training and experience led him to believe that they were “consistent” with materials used to manufacture illegal drugs.
Item (4) of the majority’s summary of the facts refers to “* * * odors characterized only as peculiar * * *” that Mrs. Dietz smelled—whereas, it should be emphasized (as the majority quoted earlier from the affidavit itself) “£* * * She further informed me that the house itself had an overpowering peculiar odor which as a lay person she was unable to identify as anything within here [sic] experience *507* * ” (Emphasis supplied.) It was not “odors” but an “* * * overpowering peculiar odor * * *.”
The pendulum has swung too far—I believe that the majority opinion is hypercritical of the affidavit and relies on cases that are distinguishable on their facts. The majority ignores the admonition found in United States v. Ventresca, 380 US 102, 108, 85 S Ct 741, 13 L Ed 2d 684 (1965), when the court said:
“* * * If the teachings of the Court’s cases are to be followed and the constitutional policy served, affidavits for search warrants, such as the one involved here, must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a commonsense and realistic fashion. They are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation. Technical requirements of elaborate specificity once enacted under common law pleadings have no proper place in this area. * * *” (Emphasis supplied.)
It is vital that our system of justice be responsive to the rights of the community as well as those of the individual.
In my opinion the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, seized pursuant to the warrant, should have been denied.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

 The affidavit stated:
“1. I, Chester M. Hostick, being first duly sworn on oath depose and say that I am a trooper with the Oregon State Police and have been so employed for 21 years and as such have regularly gone to schools within the Department for training in the identification, manufacturing and distributing of illegal dangerous drugs. I have come into contact with illegal dangerous drugs on many occastions [sic]. Recently I observed an illegal drug manufacturing laboratory which had been seized by other officers on another raid and also chemicals that were seized at the same time.
“2. In my experience and training as a police officer and in my special training in identifying narcotics and dangerous drug enforcement, I am familiar with identification of illegal manufacturing and production of illegal drugs as well as the equipment necessary in such manufacturing and production.
“3. That based on that training and experience I am aware that producers of illegal drugs frequently use rented *504locations and stay for short periods of time at those locations because to stay in one place for any long period of time and produce drugs at one location for any length of time greatly increases the chance of their discovery. I am also aware that dangerous drugs can and have been illegally manufactured and produced in non-laboratory settings and I am aware from previous experience and from contact with other law enforcement officers and from past proved reliable informants that illegal manufacturing and production of dangerous drugs has continued to occur in Lane County, Oregon. I am also aware from my training and experience that a very common dosage unit form of dangerous drugs is in pills and tablet form and to manufacture such dosage unit a press is necessary as well as necessary ingredients (both the drugs as well as cutting agents) and glassware to mix, store and aid in the production is also necessary. I am also aware producing illegal drugs is most commonly accomplished when persons working at it are protected by gloves, masks, and so forth, since drugs in the pure or ‘dust’ form which occurs during the manufacturing is easily enhaled [sic] and absorbed through the skin.
“4. That on this date I was informed by Richard Lee Krotzer, South Myrtle Route, Box 275, Myrtle Creek, Oregon, that he was personally present in the residence located at Rt. 1, Box 3927 A, Florence, Lane County, Oregon, which is located 7 miles South East of Florence, Lane County, Oregon. The house is located on the South side of Hilltop drive, % of a mile from Clear Lake Road. Said residence is further described as being brown with orange trim, it has a double garage with white doors and has a composition roof. Mr. Krotzer further informed me that while he was in that residence on March 7, 1974, he observed a large metal press approximately 6' high with press plates 2%' in diameter in the garage partly covered with a tarp. While in the garage Mr. Krotzer further observed a male subject who appeared very surprised to see Mr. Krotzer and who was also eager to remove Mr. Krotzer from the area of the press as soon as possible.
“5. That on this date I was informed by Jerrine Carolee Dietz of 43 Oak Street, Florence, Lane County, Oregon, that *505she was also personally present in the above described residence on this date and that while in that residence she observed in the garage of the residence a press which she has described as the same as Mr. Krotzer of above. She also informed me that at this same time she entered the residence and observed in the kitchen on the cabinet by a pantry door a pair of rubber gloves, and in the pantry she observed numerous glass equipment which she described as beekers [sic], jars and other glassware which in my experience and training describes glassware which is most commonly used in the storage and manufacture and mixing of illegal dangerous drugs. She further informed me that she observed containers of powdered materials which from her description are consistant [sic] with proved forms of material which would be used for manufacturing, cutting and mixing dangerous drugs in preperation [sic] for their product as dosage units. She further informed me that the house itself had an overpowering peculiar odor which as a lay person she was unable to identify as anything within here [sic] experience. She also observed in the residence a set of balance scales.
“6. That I am further informed by both of the above mentioned people that they lease that residence to the individual Mr. Krotzer saw in the garage and that they have been informed by the individual renting the premises that he is planning to move out in a very short period of time.
“7. These two above named individuals also informed me that blankets have been hung in the house and garage to cover the windows.
“Wherefore, based upon the above described facts and my experience and training I have probable cause to believe, and do believe, that in the above described residence and garage and within the curtilage of such premises is located evidence of the crime of the illegal manufacturing and processing of dangerous drugs including, but not limited to a press, glassware and ingredients used in manufacturing dangerous drugs, as well as dangerous drugs themselves and therefore this Court is respectfully requested its warrant be issued to search the above described premises for such evidence and illegal drugs.”