Pubdate: Thu, 16 Mar 2006
Source: News-Review, The (Roseburg, OR)
Copyright: 2006 The News-Review
Contact:  http://www.newsreview.info
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2623
Author: John Sowell
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)

OREGON APPEALS COURT RULES ON DRUG CHARGES

The Oregon Court of Appeals last week overturned one  Douglas County 
drug conviction and upheld another.

In the first case, the court ruled that officers from  the Roseburg 
Police Department improperly searched a  backpack found on the front 
seat of a pickup without  first obtaining a warrant. The backpack 
contained  marijuana that was allegedly being sold by the suspect.

In the second case, the court ruled that a defendant  failed to 
timely file a motion to dismiss charges on  the grounds of double 
jeopardy. The state retried the  defendant after a jury failed to 
muster enough votes to  either convict or acquit.

When the case was tried a second time, the defense  waited too late 
to raise the issue of double jeopardy,  the court ruled.

In the marijuana case, Officer Todd Crouse of the RPD  was on patrol 
in October 2002 when he spotted a man in  a pickup parked in downtown 
Roseburg. The man, who was  wearing a distinctive camouflage hat, and 
the pickup  matched the description of a purported drug dealer 
supplied by a confidential informant.

Crouse watched Glide resident Daren W. Newport appear  to pass 
something to a passenger in the pickup. While  Crouse could not see 
what was being exchanged because  the men's hands were blocked from 
view, he could tell  they were trading something.

Crouse, who had only been on the job about 18 months,  called for 
assistance from Officer Todd Koberstein, who  had extensive training 
and experience in drug cases. He  confirmed the informant who had 
supplied Crouse with  the information was a drug user whose tips had 
proved  reliable.

By the time Koberstein reached the scene, Newport had  gone inside 
the nearby Wild Rose Lounge. The officers  entered the tavern and 
asked Newport to talk with them  outside. Koberstein told Newport 
they suspected him of  drug activity and asked him for consent to 
search his  person.

Newport agreed and the officers found $2,038 in cash,  along with a 
small notebook that included notations  that appeared to list drug 
transactions. Koberstein  then asked Newport if they could search the 
backpack on  the seat of the pickup, but Newport refused. 
The  officer searched the backpack anyway, finding  marijuana.

The appeals court concluded that police had probable  cause that the 
backpack might contain evidence of  drug-related crimes. However, 
because Newport was  contacted inside the tavern and the backpack had 
been  left in the pickup, it did not give officers the right  to 
search the backpack without a warrant.

Douglas County Circuit Judge William Lasswell had  allowed the 
evidence found in the backpack to be  introduced at trial. Newport 
was convicted of  possession, manufacture and delivery of a 
controlled substance.

The Court of Appeals overturned the conviction and sent  the case 
back to Circuit Court.

In the second case, Karen S. McClendon was convicted of  possession, 
manufacture and delivery of a controlled  substance. She challenged 
her conviction of the latter  two charges on double jeopardy grounds.

McClendon was arrested in April 2002 and found guilty  by a jury of 
the possession charge. On the other  charges, the jury voted 7-5, but 
lacked the votes to  convict. Although the jury was dismissed, 
neither party  asked for a mistrial based on the jury's failure 
to  either convict or acquit McClendon.

Prosecutors retried the defendant on the possession and  delivery 
charges. Although McClendon objected to being  tried again, her 
attorney didn't file a timely motion  questioning the action until 
all the evidence in the  case had been presented.

Under Oregon law, a motion to set aside an indictment  must be made 
at the time of arraignment or within 10  days. McClendon did not do 
that, nor argue that cause  existed for needing additional time.

As a result, the appeals court rejected her claim.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman