State v. Miller

The state petitions for review of our opinion, 116 Or App 174,840 P2d 1329 (1992). We treat the petition as one for reconsideration, ORAP 9.15, and allow it only to address the state’s argument that we misconstrued the law pertaining to motions to controvert, because our ruling is inconsistent with State v. Esplin, 314 Or 296, 839 P2d 211 (1992).

In Esplin, the Supreme Court clarified that, at the time an officer applies for a search warrant, “the officer must subjectively believe that a crime has been committed and that a thing is subject to seizure, and the officer’s belief need only be…