State v. Mellinger

19 Citing cases

  1. State v. Kreutzer

    909 P.2d 175 (Or. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 2 times
    In Kreutzer, we affirmed a trial court's determination, in ordering suppression of evidence of an indoor marijuana growing operation, that the affidavit in support of the warrant application did not include facts sufficiently corroborating the reliability of statements from several unidentified informants that the defendants were growing marijuana at their home.

    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.

  2. State v. Buffington

    743 P.2d 738 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)

    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.

  3. State v. Wilson

    83 Or. App. 616 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 12 times

    " 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.

  4. State v. Strubhar

    82 Or. App. 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 5 times
    In Strubhar/Jackson, the affidavit provided solely that the informant "has supplied information to me in the past that has resulted in the execution of two (2) search warrants resulting in three (3) felony arrests."

    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).

  5. State v. Hall

    720 P.2d 376 (Or. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 2 times
    In Hall, we refused to give the information the benefit of an inference that it was information directly obtained, and we cannot make the inference here in the absence of any factual support for it. Moreover, the information furnished by the informants was more than a month old when the affidavit was made.

    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.

  6. State v. Hasselback

    55 Or. App. 281 (Or. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 9 times

    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.

  7. State v. Grimes

    135 Or. App. 497 (Or. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  8. State v. Poppe

    131 Or. App. 14 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 8 times
    In Poppe, we concluded that an anonymous tipster's information should have been excised from the warrant because "the affidavit establishes neither the basis of knowledge nor the veracity or reliability of the unnamed informant."

    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."

  9. State v. Young

    108 Or. App. 196 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 36 times
    Noting affiant officer's statement that, with respect to indoor marijuana growing operation, it “takes months of cultivation before a marijuana plant produces buds”

    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.

  10. State v. Prince

    93 Or. App. 106 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 28 times
    In Prince, the informants each individually gave the police similar information based on their personal observations. That case does not stand for the proposition that information from an informant who is not shown to be credible can, nonetheless, be used to bolster the reliability of another informant's information.

    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.