Court Opinion

ID: 9631713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:47:03.154047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:59.334565
License: Public Domain

UNIS, J.,
concurring.
A core requirement of Oregon statutory law (ORS 133.555(2)), Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is that search warrants may not issue except on the independent finding of a neutral and detached judge (magistrate) that probable cause exists. While I join the opinion of the court, the question whether the affidavit in support of the search warrant establishes probable cause is very close and is troubling to me. However, this court and the Supreme Court of the United States have long expressed a strong preference for resort to the warrant process and have held that in marginal cases deference should be given to the decision of the judge to issue the warrant. See, e.g., State v. Dunavant, 250 Or 570, 574-75, 444 P2d 1 (1968); United States v. Ventresca, 380 US 102, 109, 85 S Ct 741, 13 L Ed 2d 684 (1965). Applying those principles in this case, I conclude that the present affidavit establishes the requisite probable cause under ORS 133.555(2), Article I, section 9, and the Fourth Amendment to support the issuance of the warrant for the second and third blood samples taken from defendant’s person.