State v. Wilson

A police officer’s unaided observation of a persons conduct, from a lawful vantage point, should not be suppressed as the product of an unlawful search when, “persons conduct themselves in otherwise protected areas in such a way that their words or acts can plainly be seen or heard outside without any special effort.” State v. Louis, 296 Or 57, 61, 672 P2d 708 (1983).

Defendant appealed from the trial court’s judgment of conviction for public indecency. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial to suppress two police officers’ observations. On appeal, Defendant argued the two police officers’ observations of his conduct while lying on the floor of a public restroom constituted a warrantless search that violated his right to privacy under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. In response, the State argued Defendant did not have a protected privacy interest because his conduct occurred while he was lying on the floor of a bathroom stall that had a 12-inch gap between the stall and the floor, and anyone who walked in and slightly bent over, or was short enough, could easily see Defendant. A police officer’s unaided observation of a persons conduct, from a lawful vantage point, should not be suppressed as the product of an unlawful search when, “persons conduct themselves in otherwise protected areas in such a way that their words or acts can plainly be seen or heard outside without any special effort.” State v. Louis, 296 Or 57, 61, 672 P2d 708 (1983). The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that the police officers did not conduct a warrantless search because Defendant did not have a right to privacy when he was lying on the floor of the bathroom stall.  Affirmed.