Title: State v. Meredith

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

FILED:  August 26, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
v.
TAMERA LOUISE MEREDITH,
(98CR212OFE; CA A106960; SC S50173)
On review from the Court of Appeals.*
Argued and submitted April 15, 2004.
Rebecca Duncan, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the
cause and filed the briefs for petitioner on review.  With her on
the briefs was Peter A. Ozanne, Executive Director, Office of
Public Defense Services.
Douglas Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the
cause and filed the brief for respondent on review.  With him on
the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H.
Williams, Solicitor General.
Julia E. Markley, Perkins Coie, Portland, argued the cause
and filed the brief for amicus curiae ACLU Foundation of Oregon,
Inc.  With her on the brief were Michael S. Simon and Chin See
Ming, Portland.
Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Riggs,
De Muniz, and Balmer, Justices.**
RIGGS, J.
The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the
circuit court are affirmed.
*Appeal from Douglas County Circuit Court,

Joan G. Seitz, Judge.

184 Or App 523, 56 P3d 943 (2002).
**Kistler, J., did not participate in the consideration or
decision of this case.
1. Article I, section 9, provides, in part, that "[n]o law
shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
search, or seizure[.]"
2. In the present case, the USFS agents attached the
transmitter to the exterior of the truck, with the consent of the
employer, while the truck was parked in the employer's parking
lot.  ___ Or at ___ (slip op at 2).  There is no allegation that
the truck itself was defendant's private possession, that the
agents interfered with either defendant's private possessions, if
any, that were in the truck at the time of the attachment, or
that the transmitter enabled the agents to observe or overhear
acts of defendant inside the cab of the truck.  Each of those
examples would raise issues not present in this case, and we
express no opinion respecting them.