State v. Heyne/Yunke
Case # A149751
Full Text of Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A149751.pdf
A Police Officer stopped Defendant Yunke for running a red light. Upon approaching the car, the Officer smelled marijuana and, knowing Yunke had one, asked him for his medical-marijuana card. Yunke handed over an expired medical-marijuana card and explained that he had a new card on the way. Later in the stop, Yunke gave the Officer permission to search the car, and the Officer found 11 ounces of marijuana stored in three grocery bags as well as a pistol and a knife.
The Officer seized the marijuana and told Yunke to bring a copy of his application to renew his medical marijuana card to the police station later that day. After two days went by and Yunke had not submitted anything to the Police to substantiate his claim that he had applied to renew his medical-marijuana card, the Police contacted the Oregon Department of Human services and learned that Yunke had not applied to renew his card. They also learned that the expired card had authorized him to grow marijuana at his home.
The Police applied for a warrant to search Yunke’s house, and the affidavit for that warrant included information about the traffic stop and an Officer’s statement that anything more than 1/8 ounce of marijuana is considered a dealer amount. The Officers got their warrant and searched Yunke’s house. Yunke shared his house with his co-defendant, Heyne, and their two children. Officers found marijuana and marijuana-related items, and the two were consequently charged with various crimes.
Heyne and Yunke moved to suppress evidence obtained in the search of the house based on the ground that the affidavit did not contain sufficient facts to constitute probable cause to believe that marijuana-related evidence would be found at the house. The trial court agreed with Heyne and Yunke that the State failed to establish a connection between the house and the marijuana seized in the car, and it granted the motion to suppress. The State now appeals.
The Court of Appeals concludes that the affidavit did contain sufficient facts to connect the house to the marijuana seized in the car. The Court explains that, because Yunke’s medical-marijuana card was expired, the Judge who issued the warrant could readily conclude that Yunke unlawfully possessed the 11 ounces found in the car. Furthermore, given that the Officer had seized 11 ounces of marijuana from Yunke’s car, that some of the marijuana was packaged in baggies containing one-ounce amounts, and that the Officer had stated that a quantity of marijuana greater than an eighth of an ounce was a dealer quantity, a reasonable Judge could conclude that Yunke was dealing marijuana. Finally, the Judge could conclude that evidence of marijuana possession or delivery would likely be found at the house because that is where the expired card authorized him to grow and keep marijuana. Based on these reasons, the Court of Appeals finds that a reasonable Judge could conclude that it was likely marijuana would be found at the house, and the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress. Accordingly, that order is reversed.