OR: Lack of nexus from disconnected controlled buys

“We conclude that the facts in the affidavit did not create a sufficient nexus between the apartment and the suspected drug activity. The affidavit provided that during each of the controlled buys, one officer observed Phillips exiting the apartment, and at some unknown time later, a different officer observed Phillips meeting up with the CRI at an undisclosed location to distribute drugs. The affidavit did not show that police observed Phillips’s travel path to the undisclosed locations, nor that police ensured that Phillips did not stop somewhere prior to meeting the CRI. In addition, the affiant did not discuss the distance between the apartment and the undisclosed locations, nor how much time elapsed between Phillips leaving the apartment and arriving at those locations.” Training doesn’t fill the gaps. “A magistrate cannot infer probable cause from an absence of facts, especially when, as here, there are any number of reasons why the affidavit did not provide critical information, such as the route Phillips took or the amount of time it took him to travel between the apartment and the sites of the controlled buys, and not all of them are favorable to the police.” State v. Colgrove, 334 Or. App. 128 (July 31, 2024).