Court Opinion

ID: 9624909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:21:16.482689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:56.410890
License: Public Domain

LEE, J.,
dissenting.
At the time of sentencing, defendant argued that drugs were part of the reason the offenses had been committed and urged that the court require close supervision. In light of the defendant’s own contentions that lack of supervision and drug use precipitated her crimes, the warrantless search condition of the sentence was, in my opinion, reasonably related to the reformation of defendant and the protection of the public, so we should affirm. Cf. People v. Mason, 5 Cal 3rd 759, 762, 97 Cal Reptr 302, 488 P2d 630 (1971), cert den 405 US 1016 (1972), in which a condition of probation requiring a narcotics offender to "submit his person, place of residence, vehicle, to search and seizure at any time of the day or night, with or without a search warrant, whenever requested to do so by the Probation Officer or any law enforcement officer” was held valid. We went too far in State v. Culbertson, 29 Or App 363, 563 P2d 1224 (1977).
I find no reason why this case should be remanded for resentencing.