State v. Lien/Wilverding

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 01-05-2017
  • Case #: A158646
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Shorr, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Tookey, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

State v. Howard/Dawson, 204 Or App 438 (2006) established that defendants have no possessory interest after the sanitation company picks up the garbage can, but defendants do have a possessory interest before the sanitation company collects the defendants’ garbage can. It does not conclude that a slight deviation from an ordinary collection routine is constitutionally significant.

Defendants appealed the trial court’s denial of their motions to suppress. Specifically, Defendants contended that the trial court should have granted their motion to suppress because the police did not have authority to conduct a warrantless search of Defendants’ garbage. Defendant argued that State v. Howard/Dawson, 204 Or App 438 (2006) did not control because the sanitation company did not act in its ordinary collection routine when the manager obtained the garbage in a smaller truck rather than it being obtained by other employees in a bigger truck. The Court held that Howard/Dawson did control and a slight deviation from an ordinary collection routine was not constitutionally significant. Rather, Howard/Dawson simply established that defendants have no possessory interest after the sanitation company picks up the garbage can, but defendants do have a possessory interest before the sanitation company collects the defendants’ garbage can. Since the facts of this case are not distinguishable from Howard/Dawson, Defendants did not have a possessory interest in the garbage can once the manager picked up the garbage can and replaced it. Affirmed.

Advanced Search