OR: State didn’t develop its argument about RS at the hearing, and it’s found waived

The state’s justification for inquiries about travel plans isn’t reached on appeal because it wasn’t briefed or even developed below. Instead, the questions about it related only to initial reasonable suspicion. “We conclude that the record could have developed differently had the state’s argument been raised in the trial court. The parties could have elicited testimony from McKaig about his purpose when he asked defendant about his travel plans, a topic that was not explored on this record but which is highly relevant to whether the travel question was reasonably related to the traffic investigation.” State v. Mock, 310 Ore. App. 454, 2021 Ore. App. LEXIS 463 (Apr. 7, 2021).

There was probable cause because the CI here provided detailed information of his personal observations of drugs at defendant’s place, and the CI was corroborated as much as possible by cell phone records. Defendant’s criminal history of extensive drug trafficking and hand-to-hand transactions also provided a showing a nexus. United States v. Hill, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67526 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 7, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Standards of review, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.