State v. Ulizzi

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 11-09-2011
  • Case #: A142640
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Haselton, P.J. for the Court; Edmonds, S.J.; & Armstrong, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Even when information that led to the issuance of a warrant is "stale," a court will give deference to the issuing court and uphold a warrant that may yield potential evidence.

Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty and appealed the resulting judgment. On appeal he assigned error to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence resulting from a search of his residence. The search warrant was issued based on a sheriff's affidavit. It contained averments based on a complaint from defendant's former companion, whom the sheriff had previously interviewed. About 6 weeks before the warrant was issued, they had seen marijuana plants and a heat lamp at defendant's residence, and his companion also reported leaving 11 to 12 years prior because she suspected he sold marijuana. Defendant contended that the averments that led to the warrant were stale, because 1) the plants described did not support a commercial-scale operation such that evidence would still be there six weeks after the twins' report and 2) the heat lamp was not exclusively criminal. Although the court agreed that it was unlikely the averments supported the presence of marijuana, they did support the presence of the heat lamp, which could serve as evidence. Affirmed.

Advanced Search