State v. Wacker
Decision Date | 19 August 1993 |
Citation | 856 P.2d 1029,317 Or. 419 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Petitioner on Review, v. Bart Dale WACKER, Respondent on Review. CC C8904498CR; CA A62171; SC S39421. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Rives Kistler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition were Charles S. Crookham, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.
[317 Or. 420-A] Peter Gartlan, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the response was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.
Thomas J. Crabtree, of Crabtree & Rahmsdorff, Defense Services, Inc., Bend, filed a brief for amicus curiae Oregon Crim. Defense Lawyers Ass'n.
Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance (cocaine). ORS 475.992. Before trial, he moved to suppress the state's evidence, arguing that the seizure of the evidence was "tainted" by an unlawful search. The trial court ordered the evidence suppressed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Wacker, 111 Or.App. 483, 826 P.2d 1019 (1992). We allowed the state's petition for review. The dispositive issue is whether the police "searched" a car in which defendant was a passenger. For the reasons that follow, we hold that, because the police did not invade defendant's protected privacy interest, no search occurred. 1 Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court.
The owner of a tavern was concerned about illegal drug activity around his business. He requested police assistance. With the owner's permission, police officers stationed themselves in a second floor office above the tavern to watch for drug activity. 2 The officers used a "starlight scope" 3 and a video camcorder 4 to record their observations. The two devices were used independently of each other.
About 11:30 p.m., defendant and Deborah Weare drove into the tavern's parking lot in Weare's Nissan car. Weare was driving. She parked directly behind the tavern, six parking spaces from the side of the parking lot bounded by the side street. The officers' second floor vantage point was 29 feet from the car.
As the night went on, the number of other cars in the lot increased. About 10 to 15 other cars were in the lot while defendant and Weare were there. Other patrons of the tavern walked near Weare's car to enter the tavern. Two people stopped as they passed the car, motioned to the people inside the car and, apparently, engaged in conversation with them. Defendant and Weare stayed inside the car for several minutes before entering the tavern.
About 30 minutes later, defendant and Weare came out of the tavern with a third person; all three of them got into the car. Someone turned on the console or overhead car light, which remained on part of the time that the three people were inside the car.
After observing the activities inside the car, the officers formed an opinion that the people in the car were engaging in criminal drug activity. The officers then radioed other officers to stop the car after it left the parking lot. ORS 131.615. 5 It was stopped and, after a consensual search, 6 evidence of crime was seized. Defendant and Weare were charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance. 7
Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the use of the starlight scope and the camcorder to observe activity within Weare's car was an illegal search and that, without the information obtained by use of those devices, there was no basis for the subsequent stop and search of the car and its occupants. Accordingly, defendant argued, any evidence seized was "tainted" and must be suppressed. Defendant relied on Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The trial court found in part:
The trial court ordered that "everything the officers observed with the starlight scope must be suppressed." The court also ordered that "any evidence obtained from the stop and consensual search of the Nissan must also be suppressed as it is tainted by the illegal search." The court's oral remarks suggest that it based its ruling on Article I, section 9, and State v. Campbell, 306 Or. 157, 759 P.2d 1040 (1988).
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the police surveillance "significantly impaired defendant's right to be free from scrutiny and, therefore, constituted a warrantless search." State v. Wacker, supra, 111 Or.App. at 489, 826 P.2d 1019. The Court of Appeals' decision also appears to have been based on Article I, section 9, and State v. Campbell, supra. We allowed the state's petition for review.
We first consider defendant's arguments under Article I, section 9. 10 Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, provides in part:
"No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure * * *." 11
In State v. Owens, 302 Or. 196, 206, 729 P.2d 524 (1986), this court stated that "[a] 'search' occurs when a person's privacy interests are invaded." In State v. Louis, 296 Or. 57, 60, 672 P.2d 708 (1983), this court noted: "The first issue to determine is did the defendant exhibit an intention to protect his privacy?" In State v. Campbell, supra, this court explained:
"[T]he privacy protected by Article I, section 9, is not the privacy that one reasonably expects but the privacy to which one has a right." 306 Or. at 164, 759 P.2d 1040 (emphasis in original) (citing State v. Tanner, 304 Or. 312, 321-22 n. 7, 745 P.2d 757 (1987)).
The privacy interests protected from unreasonable searches under Article I, section 9, are defined by an objective test of whether the government's conduct "would significantly impair an individual's interest in freedom from scrutiny, i.e., his privacy." State v. Dixson/Digby, 307 Or. 195, 211, 766 P.2d 1015 (1988) ( ). If no privacy interest is implicated, no "search" has occurred under Article I, section 9.
In State v. Louis, supra, 296 Or. at 61, 672 P.2d 708, this court stated:
See also State v. Rhodes, 315 Or. 191, 197, 843 P.2d 927 (1992) ( ); State v. Dixson/Digby, supra, 307 Or. at 204-08, 766 P.2d 1015 ( ); State v. Campbell, supra, 306 Or. at 172, 759 P.2d 1040 ( ); State v. Kosta, 304 Or. 549, 555, 748 P.2d 72 (1987) ( ); State v. Owens, supra, 302 Or. at 206, 729 P.2d 524 ( ); State v. Jackson, 296 Or. 430, 438, 677 P.2d 21 (1984) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Juarez-Godinez
...conduct 'would significantly impair an individual's interest in freedom from scrutiny, i.e., his privacy.' " State v. Wacker, 317 Or. 419, 425, 856 P.2d 1029 (1993) (citation omitted); see also Nagel, 320 Or. at 24, 880 P.2d 451. In State v. Campbell, 306 Or. 157, 171, 759 P.2d 1040 (1988),......
-
State v. Jackson
...Campbell a per se rule that use of any technological advancement automatically violated the state constitution. State v. Wacker, 317 Or. 419, 426 n. 12, 856 P.2d 1029 (1993). 4. This ultimately proved not to be true in fact, and Jackson challenged inclusion of this information. However, the......
-
State v. Newcomb
...of Article I, section 9, a search occurs only if governmental action invades “a protected privacy interest.” State v. Wacker , 317 Or. 419, 426, 856 P.2d 1029 (1993). A seizure occurs only if, through governmental action, “there is a significant interference with a person's possessory or ow......
-
State v. Lien
...action invades ‘a protected privacy interest.’ " State v. Newcomb , 359 Or. 756, 764, 375 P.3d 434 (2016) (quoting State v. Wacker , 317 Or. 419, 426, 856 P.2d 1029 (1993) ). In Oregon, the right to privacy—the individual freedom from government scrutiny—protected by Article I, section 9, i......