From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Murphy

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
May 3, 2017
393 P.3d 745 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)

Opinion

A161058

05-03-2017

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Art C. MURPHY, II, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Leigh A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.


Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Leigh A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Lagesen, Judge.

PER CURIAMDefendant appeals a judgment convicting him of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270, and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. He assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the police search of his camp trailer exceeded the scope of the search warrant under which the police conducted their search. The state concedes the error, acknowledging that the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to "establish a nexus between the objects sought and the place to be searched." State v. Tidyman , 54 Or.App. 640, 643-44, 635 P.2d 1355 (1981), rev. den. , 292 Or. 722, 644 P.2d 1131 (1982) ; see State v. Thibodeaux , 173 Or.App. 353, 357, 22 P.3d 248 (2001) ("When * * * the building or vehicle is owned or occupied by persons other than those suspected of criminal activity, more is required than proximity [to the suspect's home]."). We agree with the state, accept the state's concession that the motion to suppress should have been granted, and reverse and remand the judgment.

Defendant also raises other assignments of error. Given our disposition, we need not reach those assignments.
--------

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

State v. Murphy

Court of Appeals of Oregon.
May 3, 2017
393 P.3d 745 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)
Case details for

State v. Murphy

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Art C. MURPHY, II…

Court:Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: May 3, 2017

Citations

393 P.3d 745 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)
285 Or. App. 338