State v. Hall

Article I, section 9, is implicated if a private person under-takes a search or seizure at the state’s behest. [T]he state asks a private person to search “‘a particular place or thing, and if the private person acts because of and within the scope of the state’s request,’” the private person’s actions implicate Article I, section 9. State v. Sines, 359 Or 41, 50, 379 P3d 502 (2016).

Defendant was arrested for robbing a Home Depot. A detective went to the Defendant's home where Smith answered the door. The detective told Smith not to retrieve anything and would be back with a search warrant. Smith collected the items and said a warrant would not be necessary. The motion to suppress the evidence acquired from Smith by the dectective was denied. The issue before the Court was whether a third party’s seizure of evidence constituted state action for purposes of Art. 1, sect. 9 of the Oregon Constitution. Defendant argued the seizure was illegal because it was made without a warrant and at the direction of the detective. Defendant stated the detective showing Smith pictures of the items encouraged Smith to retrieve the items for the detective. Article I, section 9, is implicated if a private person undertakes a search or seizure at the state’s behest. If the state asks a private person to search, “a particular place or thing, and if the private person acts because of and within the scope of the state’s request,” the private person’s actions implicate Article I, section 9. State v. Sines, 359 Or 41, 50, 379 P3d 502 (2016). The Court held that the trial court's factual findings supported the decision to dismiss the motion to suppress. The Court reasoned that although the detective initiated the contact with Smith, the initiation alone did not implicate state action. In order for their to be state action, the detective would have to direct, instigate or encourage the seizure itself. AFFIRMED.