- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
- Date Filed: 01-23-2025
- Case #: A177342
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Shorr, P.J.; Pagán, J.; Mooney, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
The defendant appealed the trial court's denial of her motion. She assigned error to the trial court's denial to suppress evidence. She argues that she had a constitutional right to privacy in the back of the ambulance and the officer unlawfully seized her. “For purposes of Article I, section 9, a search occurs when governmental action invades a protected privacy interest.” The Court reasoned that the defendant had no right to privacy in the back of the ambulance because the defendant had no control over who could be present. The Court also rejected the argument that the officer unlawfully seized the defendant because the request to speak with her was not directive and the whole encounter was low-key and brief. The Court reasoned that any reasonable person would have understood they could terminate the encounter if they wanted to. Affirmed.