State v. Cazee

To establish probable cause, “an officer may consider the facts in light of the officer’s training, knowledge, and experience, but that experience cannot itself supply the facts.” State v. Aguilar, 307 Or App 457, 469, 478 P3d 558 (2020).

Defendant appealed convictions for invasion of personal privacy, stalking, criminal trespass, and using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct. Defendant assigned error to the trial court denying motions to suppress evidence and motions for judgment of acquittal. The State contended probable cause was established in the officer’s affidavit so the search warrant was valid and evidence was properly admitted. The State further argued that “training and experience supplied the necessary link” between the crimes allegedly committed and the belief that evidence would be found in the place to be searched. To establish probable cause, “an officer may consider the facts in light of the officer’s training, knowledge, and experience, but that experience cannot itself supply the facts.” State v. Aguilar, 307 Or App 457, 469, 478 P3d 558 (2020). The Court found that while there was enough evidence to establish probable cause for the crimes committed (invasion of privacy), there was not enough evidence to establish that his cell phone (place to be searched) was used in the commission of the crime. In determining if the denial of the judgement of acquittal was proper the court must “determine whether a rational fact finder could have found each element of the offense to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Reed, 339 Or 239, 243 (2005). The Court found that the “states proposed construction of ORS 163.670 (1) [display charge] is inconsistent with the statutory test and unsupported by any…legislative history.” Thus, there was not sufficient evidence to support this charge. Convictions for using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, ORS 163.670, reversed; remaining convictions reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.