From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Carlile

Oregon Supreme Court
Nov 28, 1980
290 Or. 161 (Or. 1980)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Carlile, the informers were involved in narcotics activities and while confessing provided the information that was used in the affidavits.

Summary of this case from State v. Villagran
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

CA 12378, SC 26792

Argued and submitted June 2, 1980.

Affirmed in Carlile, reversed in Reiter and Shaw November 28, 1980.

Appeal from the Court of Appeals.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County (No. 78-2355) George J. Woodrich, Judge. 43 Or. App. 692, 603 P.2d 783 (1979)

Laurie K. Smith, of Frye, Smith Franzer, P.C., Eugene, argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

Frederick A. Hugi, Deputy District Attorney, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs was J. Pat Horton, District Attorney, Eugene.

Before Denecke, Chief Justice, and Tongue, Howell, Lent, Linde and Peterson, Justices.

HOWELL, J.

Affirmed.

Summaries of

State v. Carlile

Oregon Supreme Court
Nov 28, 1980
290 Or. 161 (Or. 1980)

In Carlile, the informers were involved in narcotics activities and while confessing provided the information that was used in the affidavits.

Summary of this case from State v. Villagran

regarding hearsay information in the determination of probable cause

Summary of this case from State v. Gabbard

In Carlile, the court stated that the circumstances of a particular case may indicate that an informer who admits his criminal involvement, nevertheless, is providing reliable information on this occasion.

Summary of this case from State v. Lillard

In Carlile, the court dealt with two affidavits, involving different informants, and held one sufficient and the other insufficient. With respect to the first affidavit, the court stated that four factors were sufficiently indicative of the informant's reliability to justify the warrant: (1) the informant was named; (2) she admitted criminal activity; (3) she possessed the drug she allegedly had obtained from the defendant; and (4) her information was partially corroborated by the police having observed her visit the defendant's residence shortly before she was arrested.

Summary of this case from State v. Luttrell

In State v. Carlile, supra, 290 Or at 168, the court said: "The fact that she [the informant] was named and that she had made an admission against her penal interest is an insufficient guarantee of reliability where no partial police corroboration of the information was made."

Summary of this case from State v. Liberman
Case details for

State v. Carlile

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JUDITH ANN CARLILE, Petitioner

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: Nov 28, 1980

Citations

290 Or. 161 (Or. 1980)
619 P.2d 1280

Citing Cases

State v. Luttrell

Defendant was convicted, on stipulated facts, of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992.…

State v. Kapsalis

The fact that the informant provided information against his penal interest does "not go far in establishing…

45 Citing Cases