State v. Wilson

A person whose intends to preserve a constitutionally protected privacy interest, must manifest an intention to exclude the public by erecting barriers to entry, using fences or by posting signs. State v. Dixson/Digby, 307 Or 195, 211-12, 766 P2d 1015 (1988).

Defendant sought review of a conviction for unlawful delivery of marijuana. Defendant argued the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered after officers unlawfully entered his private land to contact him. Defendant contended that his “No Trespassing” signs posted on a privately-owned road leading to his home, objectively demonstrated intent to prohibit the public from entering his property. The State argued a reasonable person would not have understood those signs to mean that use of the road to contact the defendant at his home by a casual visitor was prohibited. Article 1, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution grants protections against unreasonable search and seizure. A person whose intends to preserve a constitutionally protected privacy interest, must manifest an intention to exclude the public by erecting barriers to entry, using fences or by posting signs. State v. Dixson/Digby, 307 Or 195, 211-12, 766 P2d 1015 (1988). Whether barriers of entry are sufficient as a matter of law, as to give a reasonable person notice that entering is prohibited, hinges on the totality of the circumstances. State v. McKee, 272 Or App 372, 379, 356 P3d 651 (2015) .The Court of Appeals found that under the totality of the circumstances, placement of the signs, and the lack of barriers were insufficient to objectively manifest intent to prevent public access. Therefore, a reasonable person would not conclude that casual visitors were prohibited from approaching his door. Affirmed