State v. Newsted

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of an affidavit supporting a magistrate’s issuance of a search warrant, the court asks whether “a neutral and detached magistrate could conclude (1) that there is a reason to believe that the facts stated are true; and (2) that the facts and circumstances disclosed by the affidavit are sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the search requested.” State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 264, 192 P3d 1283 (2008).

Defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle and theft in the second degree. He appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant. He contended that the affidavit in support of the warrant did not provide probable cause. Defendant never challenged the factual content of the affidavit, thus the Court’s inquiry was limited to whether, “given the uncontroverted facts in the affidavit and reasonably derived inferences, the issuing magistrate reasonably ‘could have concluded that the affidavit established probable cause to search***.’” State v. Duarte / Knull-Dunagan, 237 Or App 13, 21, 238 P3d 411, rev den, 349 Or 370 (2010) (quoting Castilleja, 345 Or at 265). “[The Court] is required to consider any reasonable inference that could have been drawn from the facts in the affidavit to support the magistrate’s determination of probable cause.” State v. Marsing, 244 Or App 556, 559, 260 P3d 739 (2011). In sum, the Court concluded that a reasonable magistrate could infer that probable cause existed to issue a warrant, and that the magistrate did not err in determining that the affidavit established probable cause. Affirmed.