State v. Fulmer

“Property is ‘seized,’ for purposes of Article I, section 9, when there is a significant interference, even a temporary one, with a person’s possessory or ownership interests in the property.” State v. Juarez-Godinez, 326 Or 1, 6, 942 P2d 772 (1997).

Defendant appealed her conviction of unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued that a reasonable person in her position would not have known she could have removed items from the car and that the police had an affirmative duty to ask if she wanted to remove anything. In response, the State argued that Defendant was incorrectly interpreting Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution and that the officers possessed no such duty. “Property is ‘seized,’ for purposes of Article I, section 9, when there is a significant interference, even a temporary one, with a person’s possessory or ownership interests in the property.” State v. Juarez-Godinez, 326 Or 1, 6, 942 P2d 772 (1997). The Court found that Defendant’s affirmative duty argument was one of first impression and did not find it convincing. The Court further held that a seizure did not take place. Affirmed.