Court Opinion

ID: 9541289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:24:12.307601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:42.414639
License: Public Domain

CAMPBELL, J.,
concurring.
I concur with the result reached by the majority, but find it unnecessary to “disapprove” or “overrule” Grisel *468v. OSP, 290 Or 719, 625 P2d 651, cert den 454 US 846, 102 S Ct 164, 70 LEd 2d 134 (1981).1
In Grisel v. OSP, supra, this court at 721 said:
“Petitioner’s sole complaint is that the statement T saw Grisel stab Smith’ is a ‘conclusory statement’ in that it does not state how or where the stabbing took place and therefore cannot be compared to the other evidence in the case. * * *
“* * * The statement is not conclusory; it is a statement of directly observed fact. * * * Therefore, petitioner’s contention fails.” (Emphasis supplied).
The balance of Grisel opinion referred to by the majority opinion and Justice Jones’ concurring opinion is dictum.
Furthermore, Grisel v. OSP can be distinguished from this case on the facts. In Grisel, the victim had received a stab wound which corroborated the statement of the informant. In this case there is no physical evidence to bolster the informant’s statement.

 Grisel v. OSP, 290 Or 719, 625 P2d 651, cert den 454 US 846, 102 S Ct 164, 70 LEd 2d 134 (1981), was a 4-3 decision. The writer is the sole survivor of the four judge majority. Chief Justice Denecke and Justices Tongue and Tanzer have gone their separate ways leaving this humble public servant with a lonesome finger in the dike.

 Professor LaFave provides an extensive review of this entire subject in his article Probable Cause From Informants: The Effects of Murphy’s Law on Fourth Amendment Adjudication, 1977 111 Law Forum 1 (1977).