State v. Sines

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 04-14-2016
  • Case #: S062493
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Balmer, C.J. For the Court; Kistler, J.; Walters, J.; Linder, J.; Landau, J.; Baldwin, J.; Sercombe, J. Pro Tempore
  • Full Text Opinion

Privacy interests protected by Article I, section 9, “is an interest against the state,” and “is not an interest against private parties.” Article I, section 9, is a restriction on government searches and seizures, not private ones.

Defendant appealed a denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained through an improper search and seizure by a private citizen. The evidence in question, was obtained via a housekeeper, who had called and spoke with DHS, regarding potential sexual abuse. The court of appeals originally reversed the trial court holding the evidence was improperly obtained. The Court began by reviewing the Oregon constitution on what constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. Defendant argued that the court should adopt a two prong federal test, which if applied, would find that the government acted improperly and would support a motion to suppress. Ultimately, The Court held that prior case precedent clearly showed that Article I, Section 9, is a restriction government searches and seizures, not private ones. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

Advanced Search