State v. Soto-Sarabia

“Probable cause exists when the facts, as set forth in the affidavit, along with any reasonable inferences, could ‘permit a neutral and detached magistrate to determine that seizable evidence probably would be found at the place to be searched”. State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255, 269 (2008).

Defendant appealed a judgement of conviction for unlawful delivery of heroin, ORS 475.850, and unlawful possession of heroin, ORS 475.854(2)(b). Defendant assigned two errors to the trial court, arguing(1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the affidavit was supported by stale facts and lacked probable cause; and (2) that the trial court erred when it did not merge the possession verdict into the delivery verdict. The State responded that because of the totality of circumstances, the affidavit did establish probable cause. The State concedes on the second argument. “Probable cause exists when the facts, as set forth in the affidavit, along with any reasonable inferences, could ‘permit a neutral and detached magistrate to determine that seizable evidence probably would be found at the place to be searched”. State v. Castilleja, 345 Or 255, 269 (2008). The Court reasoned that the trial court was correct as to error one because the connection between the objective facts in the affidavit and the officer’s training and expertise established probable cause. The Court accepted the State’s concession on error two and agreed with Defendant. Therefore, the judgement is reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.