The affidavit does state that defendants' daughter told CC1 that the plants were marijuana, but does not describe the daughter's experience or familiarity, if any, with marijuana. The state argues, however, that CC1's statements pertaining to marijuana are reliable. It relies on State v. Horwedel, 66 Or. App. 400, 674 P.2d 623, rev den 296 Or. 638 (1984), and State v. Mellinger, 52 Or. App. 21, 627 P.2d 897 (1981). Both cases are materially distinguishable.
Each affidavit must be examined in a common sense, realistic and nontechnical manner. State v. Villagran, 294 Or. 404, 408, 657 P.2d 1223 (1983); State v. Mellinger, 52 Or. App. 21, 25, 627 P.2d 897 (1981). Defendant relies only on Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and not on the Fourth Amendment.
" 294 Or at 408. In State v. Mellinger, 52 Or. App. 21, 627 P.2d 897 (1981), we stated: "Whether a particular affidavit supports the magistrate's determination does not depend upon the existence of specific facts or information.
State v. Age, 38 Or. App. 501, 503, 590 P.2d 759 (1979). In State v. Mellinger, 52 Or. App. 21, 627 P.2d 897 (1981), we held that the reliability of an unidentified informant may be established by a recital of facts showing that the informant has previously proven reliable. See also State v. Nehl, 19 Or. App. 586, 528 P.2d 553 (1974), rev den (1975); State v. Thacker, 9 Or. App. 250, 496 P.2d 729 (1972).
I believe that the case law runs contrary to such a notion. As we stated in State v. Mellinger, 52 Or. App. 21, 25, 627 P.2d 897 (1981): "* * * Whether a particular affidavit supports the magistrate's determination does not depend upon the existence of specific facts or information.
The basis of the informants' knowledge was first-hand experience: they traded stolen coins for hashish in defendants' home.See State v. Mellinger, 52 Or. App. 21, 627 P.2d 897 (1981); State v. Henderson, 40 Or. App. 27, 594 P.2d 419 (1979); State v. Diaz, 29 Or. App. 523, 564 P.2d 1066 (1977). Defendants contend that the affidavit did not establish that the informants and Officer Lamm or his fellow officers had any training in recognizing hashish.
For the same reason, we conclude that the affidavit here is sufficient to establish the CI's credibility. See also State v. Mellinger, 52 Or. App. 21, 25-26, 627 P.2d 897 (1981) (informant's credibility established by statement that the informant had "furnished information leading to several felony and numerous misdemeanor arrests"). Once the CI's veracity is established, the critical issue with this affidavit is whether there are enough facts to establish probable cause to believe that marijuana was being grown at defendants' residence.
This court "ought not adopt a negative approach toward warrant applications, but should review them in a common sense nontechnical manner." State v. Young, 108 Or. App. 196, 200, 816 P.2d 612 (1991), rev den 314 Or. 392 (1992); State v. Mellinger, 52 Or. App. 21, 627 P.2d 897 (1981). "Although in a particular case it may not be easy to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants."
There is a preference for searches incident to warrants and reviewing courts ought not adopt a negative approach toward warrant applications, but should review them in a common sense nontechnical manner. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S Ct 741, 13 L Ed 2d 684 (1965); State v. Mellinger, 52 Or. App. 21, 627 P.2d 897 (1981). The issuing magistrate's determination should be paid great deference by reviewing courts.
In making that determination, we must construe the affidavit in a commonsense, nontechnical and realistic fashion looking at the facts recited and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those. State v. Villagran, supra, 294 Or at 408; State v. Tacker, 241 Or. 597, 601, 407 P.2d 851 (1965); State v. Mellinger, 52 Or. App. 21, 25, 627 P.2d 897 (1981). An affidavit supporting a search warrant is tested by much less rigorous standards than govern the admissibility or weight of evidence at trial.