Court Opinion

ID: 9793787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:52:59.548628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:53.251765
License: Public Domain

TANZER, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority rejection of the state’s theory that consent to an airport search is consent to a police search. I further agree that the legal issue is whether the officer’s observations from his lawful vantage point were sufficient to constitute probable cause. Unlike the majority, however, I conclude that the officer had sufficient cause to believe it probable that defendant possessed marihuana. The officer’s conclusions must be assessed in light of common experience and common sense.
If the officer had seen a cigarette holder in defendant’s possession, it would have been reasonable for him to think it likely, though not certain, that defendant had cigarettes on his person. If the officer had seen a briar pipe in defendant’s possession, common experience would allow him to reasonably suspect that defendant had some pipe tobacco. There is nothing different in the logic of this case except that it involves contraband. If the officer sees defendant in possession of a roach holder, then it is equally reasonable for him to suspect that defendant is in possession of marihuana.1
"roach — * * * the butt of a marijuana cigarette.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971).
*697In addition, the officer observed stains in the hole of the roach holder which he inferred (and defendant testified) were marihuana residue. That observation makes the officer’s reasonable suspicion all the more warranted.2
I believe the statement of the majority that Officer "Zahar did not testify as to his opinion as to the primary use of roach holders” to be either mistaken or hypertechnical. A fair reading of the record is otherwise. He testified:
"Q Could you describe how those particular items, particularly roach clips and roach holders, describe what those are, their purpose, and how they appear, if there’s any stereotype that can be made with respect to them?
"A Basically we’re talking about two different items. A roach holder would resemble a cigarette holder of sorts. The marijuana cigarette is usually placed into a hole. And then the smoke is drawn through the holder itself. Through a mouthpiece. And taken that way.”
On cross-examination he agreed with the questioner that a roach holder "could be” used to smoke tobacco cigarettes,3 but he never testified that cigarette smoking or any other non-marihuana use was its purpose. Marihuana smoking is the only purpose for a roach holder to which he testified. The fact that a use other than its purpose is possible does not diminish its primary purpose for marihuana smoking any more than the purpose of a bent, burnt spoon as a tool for heroin ingestion is lesser because it "could be” used to eat cornflakes. This record simply does not justify the majority’s conclusion that "we do not construe Zahar’s testimony as being to the effect that the primary use of *698a roach holder was for other than legitimate purposes.” To the contrary, the use of a roach holder for marihuana smoking is the only purpose to which Officer Zahar testified, and that is why he suspected defendant’s possession of marihuana.
For these reasons, I believe that the officer had probable cause, based upon lawful observations, to believe that defendant was in possession of marihuana and the search was therefore valid.

Defense counsel cautions against engaging in a semantic exercise. We should assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that words are used to convey their normal meaning.

Our holding in State v. Parks, State v. Tarpley, Jr., 5 Or App 601, 485 P2d 1246 (1971), cited by the majority is distinguishable. A hashish pipe in a vehicle used for transport less strongly implies presence of hashish in the vehicle, in my judgment, than possession of marihuana paraphernalia on one’s person implies personal possession of marihuana. Also, the observation of residue, indicating use of the implement, distinguishes these facts from Parks, Tarpley.

 The diameter of the large opening of the holder is one-quarter inch, not one-half inch. It is too small to hold a standard size manufactured cigarette.