State v. Polezhaev

An officer has objective probable cause to arrest someone for possession of heroin if the facts known to the officer make it objectively reasonable to believe that it is more likely than not that the person possesses some amount of heroin. State v. Madden, 315 Or App 787, 795, 502 P3d 746 (2021).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of heroin. At trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was the product of an unlawful warrantless seizure of defendant and an unlawful warrantless search of the van. In response, the State argued that defendant’s seizure was justified at the outset by probable cause based on the officer’s observation of the residue on the foil, and that the search, consequently, was justified as a search incident to arrest. The trial court agreed with the state. On appeal, defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. An officer has objective probable cause to arrest someone for possession of heroin if the facts known to the officer make it objectively reasonable to believe that it is more likely than not that the person possesses some amount of heroin. State v. Madden, 315 Or App 787, 795, 502 P3d 746 (2021). The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court, holding that “it was objectively reasonable for [the officer] to think that it was more likely than not that defendant was in possession of heroin.” Therefore, the Court concluded that “[the officer] had probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of heroin and that [his] warrantless search of the [van] was justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement.” Affirmed.