State v. Perrodin

Under State v. Jennings, 220 Or App 1 (2008) and State v. Dodge, 223 Or App 130 (2008), when a defendant challenges an arrest based on a facial deficiency to a warrant, the state must either produce the warrant or defend the arrest as a valid warrantless arrest supported by probable cause.

Defendant appealed convictions for delivery of methamphetamine, possession of cocaine, and two counts of felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress; the evidence at issue was collected during arrest pursuant to a “parole violation warrant.” On appeal, Defendant argued that the warrant lacked an oath or affirmation and that once he alleged the facial deficiency, the state had the burden to provide evidence to support the warrant’s validity. In response, the state argued that warrants are presumed valid and that it is Defendant’s burden to prove otherwise. Under State v. Jennings, 220 Or App 1 (2008) and State v. Dodge, 223 Or App 130 (2008), when a defendant challenges an arrest based on a facial deficiency to a warrant, the state must either produce the warrant or defend the arrest as a valid warrantless arrest supported by probable cause. The Court found that when a warrant challenge requires a court to “look to the warrant or affidavit itself[,]” and is “effectively challeng[ing] the existence of [a] warrant,” it is necessary that the warrant be produced and that the state is in a position to do so. Once the warrant is produced, the defendant still bears the burden of proof/persuasion. Reversed and Remanded.