State v. Goennier

In the case of a warrantless search, “it is the state’s burden to show that the search was supported by probable cause. Probable cause exists if the facts on which the officers relied would ‘lead a reasonable person to believe that seizable things will probably be found in the location to be searched.’” State v. Anspach 298 Or 375, 381, 692 P2d 602 (1984).

Defendant appealed judgment of conviction for unlawful delivery and possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial to suppress evidence that was obtained from a warrantless search of his vehicle. On appeal, Defendant argued that the police officer’s search, under the automobile exception, lacked probable cause because there was no connection between the passenger and Defendant to justify that the officer’s would find evidence of narcotics distribution in his vehicle. In response, the State argued that there was probable cause when Defendant’s truck was searched because Defendant was acting extremely nervous, appeared to have attempted to hide something, and suggested police officers search the passenger’s purse, where drugs and empty baggies were found. In the case of a warrantless search, “it is the state’s burden to show that the search was supported by probable cause. Probable cause exists if the facts on which the officers relied would ‘lead a reasonable person to believe that seizable things will probably be found in the location to be searched.’” State v. Anspach 298 Or 375, 381, 692 P2d 602 (1984). The Court of Appeals held that given the totality of the circumstances, it was “more likely than not,” that there was a connection of drug delivery between the passenger and Defendant, thus giving the police officer probable cause to search the vehicle. Affirmed.