State v. Klingler

An affidavit to a search warrant is sufficient where it would support “a neutral and detached” magistrate’s conclusion “that there was probable cause to believe that a search . . . would reveal evidence of” a crime. State v. Heyne/Yunke, 270 Or. App. 601, 605 (2015).

The State appealed a pretrial order partially granting Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, arguing the trial court erred in determining that the search warrant did not establish probable cause to seize the evidence in question. An affidavit to a search warrant is sufficient where it would support “a neutral and detached” magistrate’s conclusion “that there was probable cause to believe that a search . . . would reveal evidence of” a crime. State v. Heyne/Yunke, 270 Or. App. 601, 605 (2015). Probable cause exists “when the facts set out in the affidavit would ‘lead a reasonable person to believe that sizable things will probably be found in the location to be searched.’” State v. Castilleja, 345 Or. 255, 264 (2008) (quoting State v. Goodman, 328 Or. 318, 325 (1999)). The Court held that a neutral and detached magistrate could conclude that the affidavit contained sufficient facts to establish probable cause to search. Thus the Court held the trial court erred by partially granting defendant’s motion to suppress. Reversed and remanded.