State v. Bunch

For purposes of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a disclaimer of ownership of an item may—but does not necessarily—demonstrate an abandonment of all constitutionally protected interests in the item.

Defendant appealed a conviction for possession of methamphetamine and heroin. On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress. Defendant argued that, without her consent or a warrant, the search of her purse violated Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. In response, the State argued that “[D]efendant abandoned any possessory or privacy interest in the purse.” Courts will suppress evidence only when a defendant’s rights under Article I, section 9, have been violated. State v. Tanner, 304 Or 312, 315-16, 745 P2d 757 (1987). Under State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 206, 729 P2d 524 (1986), that determination turns on whether Defendant had a constitutionally protected privacy interest in the purse at the time of the search. The Court acknowledged that a person can lose a constitutionally protected possessory and privacy interest in property by abandoning it but clarified that “[a]bandonment requires an unequivocal manifestation of an intention to relinquish all constitutionally protected interests in the affected property.” The Court found that, “despite [Defendant’s] disclaimer of ownership” and “failure to object when [the officer] announced that he would take the purse for safekeeping,” Defendant maintained possessory and privacy interests in the purse. Thus, the Court held that Defendant did not “give up her right to challenge the unlawful warrantless search.” Reversed and remanded.