- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 05-19-2021
- Case #: A172537
- Judge(s)/Court Below: James, J. for the Court; Lagesen, P.J.; & Kamins, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine after he allowed officers into his home, consequently, the officers observed a methamphetamine pipe. Defendant revoked his consent to entry after the officers observed the pipe, but he was nonetheless arrested for possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant argued that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him for possession of methamphetamine because he revoked his consent to entry before officers observed the methamphetamine pipe in his residence. The State contended that one of the officers observed methamphetamine residue in the pipe prior to Defendant’s revocation and that this observation gave rise to probable cause. A defendant’s possession of a methamphetamine pipe, without more, is insufficient to support probable cause for an arrest for possession of methamphetamine. State v. Sunderman, 304 Or App 329, 467 P3d 52 (2020). The Court held that mere observation of methamphetamine residue in the pipe was insufficient to establish probable cause for possession of methamphetamine. Thus, the Court remanded for further fact-finding as to whether the officers observed residue in the pipe before or after Defendant revoked his consent. Vacated and remanded.