Opinion
TC 84112247; CA A36464; SC S32983
Argued and submitted October 7, 1986
affirmed December 23, 1986
In Banc
On Review from the Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Linn County, Wendell H. Tompkins, Judge. 79 Or. App. 435, 720 P.2d 753 (1986).
David J. Phillips, Public Defender Services for Lane County, Eugene, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition were Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender for Oregon, and J. Marvin Kuhn, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Salem.
Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the response were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
LINDE, J.
The decisions of the circuit court and the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Defendant appealed convictions of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, and theft in the first degree, ORS 164.055, which rested on evidence to which defendant stipulated after the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence. Defendant assigned as errors the admission of evidence seized under two search warrants, the second of which was based on evidence gained under an initial warrant to seize another vehicle on probable cause to believe that it was unlawfully registered contrary to former ORS 481.130 (repealed by Or Laws 1983, ch 338, § 978), punishable as a Class C traffic infraction with a maximum fine of $100. The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's convictions. State v. Weist, 79 Or. App. 435, 720 P.2d 753 (1986).
In State v. Weist, 302 Or. 370, 730 P.2d 26 (1986), also decided today, we have held that the warrant for the initial seizure and search of the first vehicle was validly issued. Defendant has raised no additional issues concerning the second search that led to the seizure of the evidence in this case beyond the asserted illegality of the seizure of the first vehicle. For the reasons stated in State v. Weist, supra, the decisions of the circuit court and the Court of Appeals are affirmed.