Opinion
J81-2521; CA A24899
Argued and submitted December 14, 1982
Reversed and remanded for trial February 23, 1983 Reconsideration denied April 1, 1983 Petition for review denied June 7, 1983 ( 295 Or. 161)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas County, Don H. Sanders, Judge.
Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and William F. Gary, Solicitor General, Salem.
Darryl E. Johnson, Roseburg, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, Joseph, Chief Judge, and Van Hoomissen, Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Reversed and remanded for trial.
The state appeals that part of an order which suppressed evidence seized from certain buildings on defendant's property. The letter opinion of the court, in response to defendant's motions to controvert the affidavit and suppress the evidence seized, provided in part:
"I * * * agree with the State's contentions on the matter of probable cause for a warrant to search the green house — so to that extent, Defendant's motion to suppress the items seized, these shall also be denied.
"Finally, the motion to suppress items seized in the other structures shall be granted as it is apparent the search of the other structures is not based upon any tangible evidence that contraband was therein, rather, the basis was entirely the subjectively based opinions of the officer."
For the reasons expressed in State v. Harp, 48 Or. App. 185, 616 P.2d 564, rev den 290 Or. 171 (1980), we conclude that the affidavit was sufficient.
Reversed and remanded for trial.