DocketNumber: No. 79-02-30478, CA 15674
Citation Numbers: 46 Or. App. 373, 611 P.2d 695, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2754
Judges: Joseph, Schwab, Warren
Filed Date: 5/27/1980
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Defendant assigns as error an order denying his motion to suppress evidence of amphetamine pills obtained in a patdown search. We affirm.
In February, 1979, pursuant to a search warrant in which defendant was not named,
At the suppression hearing the defendant’s attorney conceded that the frisk was lawful but argued that the scope of the frisk was excessive. The state maintains that the search can be justified as incident to arrest for violation of ORS 167.222(1), frequenting a place where controlled substances Eire used. The search was valid for a different reason. The officer testified that in his experience he found prescription vials and film canisters often used to contain narcotics or dangerous drugs. In State v. Holmes, 17 Or App 464, 470, 522 P2d 900 (1974), we held that in a search incident to arrest for drug activity, a film canister was a reasonable place to find narcotics, since "[e]vidence of this particular crime is readily concealable within such small containers.” In State v. Diaz, 29 Or App 523, 535, 564 P2d 1066 (1977), we upheld the seizure and search of a film canister under circumstances which, while quantitatively more supportive of "a
Here the warrant authorized search of premises of a "shooting gallery” nature, where "shooting up” by patrons and the presence of large amounts of drugs including methamphetamines had been reported, and a large amount of foot traffic directly observed. Given the conceded validity of the frisk, the officer had probable cause to remove and search the object which, because of its size, shape and sound, and the officer’s experience, gave rise to a "well-warranted suspicion justifying a reasonable belief that a certain set of facts exist[ed],” i.e., that the object was a vial containing contraband. State v. Wesson, 40 Or App 99, 103, 594 P2d 429 (1979).
Affirmed.
Two individuals were named for search in the warrant, the purpose of which was to find "Methamphetamine 'crank’ narcotics paraphernalia, items of identification drug records and records of names of persons involved in drug activity.”