The Oregon Supreme Court issued an opinion on April 24, 2025 on State v. Lee, which reversed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court.

The case as described by Justia Daily: “An informant informed law enforcement that a person named "Tom Collins" was dealing heroin from a residence in Albany, Oregon. Detectives planned to use the informant in a controlled buy at the residence. Instead of waiting for the results of the controlled buy to apply for a warrant, the detectives applied for and obtained a search warrant that anticipated the controlled buy. The state argued that the warrant was an "anticipatory warrant" as approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Grubbs. The defendant argued that such warrants are incompatible with Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.”

Article I, section 9 is the “Bill of Rights” and Section 9 is Unreasonable searches or seizures. No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.

“The Linn County Circuit Court denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search, ruling that anticipatory warrants were valid under both the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that anticipatory warrants were permissible under Article I, section 9, and that the affidavit established probable cause.

“The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and declined to address the constitutional question. Instead, the court focused on Oregon's statutory warrant requirements, specifically ORS 133.555(2) and ORS 133.545(6). The court concluded that the affidavit in support of the warrant failed to comply with ORS 133.545(6), which requires that the facts and circumstances show that the objects of the search are in the places to be searched at the time of the warrant's issuance.”

ORS 133.545(6) The application shall consist of a proposed warrant in conformance with ORS 133.565 (Contents of search warrant), and shall be supported by one or more affidavits particularly setting forth the facts and circumstances tending to show that the objects of the search are in the places, or in the possession of the individuals, to be searched. If an affidavit is based in whole or in part on hearsay, the affiant shall set forth facts bearing on any unnamed informant’s reliability and shall disclose, as far as possible, the means by which the information was obtained.

“As a result, the warrant did not comply with ORS 133.555(2), and the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress.”

ORS 133.555(2) If the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of ORS 133.545 (Issuance of search warrant) and that, on the basis of the record made before the judge, there is probable cause to believe that the search will discover things specified in the application and subject to seizure under ORS 133.535 (Permissible objects of search and seizure), the judge shall issue a search warrant based on the finding of the judge and in accordance with the requirements of ORS 133.545 (Issuance of search warrant) to 133.615 (Return of the warrant). If the judge does not so find, the judge shall deny the application.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

This case exposes how the Oregon legislature has repeatedly passed laws that conflict with the constitutions. The Supreme Court continually refuses to deal with the conflict between the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions verses Oregon statutes by repeatedly overturning the lower courts. Recently they overturned the decision against Measure 114 restricting the right to bear arms for defense.

The legislature could have corrected the conflict in this case when amending HB 2473, but instead they eliminated added warrant authorizations and switched it to repealing the manner of committing the crime of harassment, and requiring a phlebotomist to withdraw blood for evidence of driving under the influence.

Perhaps the Supreme Court doesn’t want to expose multiple legislative conflicts because they hold their purse strings. Justice Flynn has submitted SB 96 giving the Supreme Court judges a $100,000 raise and equivalent raises for lower courts with a $33.3 Million impact on the General Fund. It is currently being reviewed by Ways and Means.

The fact that the Supreme Court didn’t include the constitution in their decision, which takes priority, should be disturbing to all Oregonians. Now there is a known heroin dealer back in action.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-04-26 12:08:29

Last Update: 2025-04-25 18:22:52