State v. Gatto

The standard to discern whether all privacy interests subject to Article I, section 9, have been given up is “whether the defendant’s statements and conduct demonstrated that he [or she] relinquished all constitutionally protected interests in the articles of property.” State v. Cook, 332 Or. 601, 608, 34 P.3d 156 (2001).

Defendant appealed a conviction of identity theft, resisting arrest, and theft in the second degree. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s conclusion that the warrantless search of Defendant’s motel room was constitutional. The trial court declined to decide if Defendant actually checked out of his room and instead reasoned that based on the facts, Defendant had implicitly relinquished privacy rights to his room. Defendant argued that he never implicitly nor explicitly checked out of the room and, therefore, Defendant’s Article I, section 9 liberties were violated. The State argued that the circumstances leading up to the search carried an assumption that Defendant had forsaken any potential privacy interest in the room. The standard to discern whether all privacy interests subject to Article I, section 9, have been given up is “whether the defendant’s statements and conduct demonstrated that he [or she] relinquished all constitutionally protected interests in the articles of property.” State v. Cook, 332 Or. 601, 608, 34 P.3d 156 (2001).  The Court held that the State failed to show Defendant’s conduct met the standard under Cook because, although Defendant had packed bags and left the hotel, there were still several hours till check out time, and that inference alone was not enough for Defendant to be subject to a warrantless search. Reversed and remanded.