Opinion ID: 1131281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis and disposition

Text: In the recent case of State v. Ainsworth, supra , we addressed the issue present here: Whether a purposive aerial observation by police constitutes an unreasonable search under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. We began by noting that the threshold issue in any Article I, section 9, search analysis is whether the police conduct at issue is sufficiently intrusive to be classified as a search. Relying on this court's past cases that have interpreted Article I, section 9, to mean that a police officer at a lawful vantage point who observes contraband or illegal conduct has not conducted a search in the constitutional sense, 310 Or. at 617, 801 P.2d 749, we concluded that the rule should be no different simply because the observation is made from an aircraft. We held that, because there was no evidence that the sheriff's deputies in that case were not lawfully in the air above the defendants' land, their actions did not constitute a search within the meaning of Article I, section 9. In its petitions for review, the state argues that the factual differences between these cases and Ainsworth are of no legal significance and that the disposition of the three cases before us now and Ainsworth should be identical. Defendants Gohring and Session acknowledge, in response to the court's questions, that [t]here are certain factual differences in these cases, but none that should render the results different. Defendant Viar states that although there are small factual distinctions among [the cases], these distinctions do not mandate different results in the cases. We agree with the parties: There are no legally significant differences between these cases and State v. Ainsworth, supra . Further, as in Ainsworth, no party argues to this court that the police officers' conduct was a search under the Fourth Amendment, and we do not address that issue. Therefore, the holding in Ainsworth is dispositive of these cases: We hold that a police officer's unaided observation, purposive or not, from a lawful vantage point is not a search under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. State v. Ainsworth, supra, 310 Or. at 622, 801 P.2d 749. In none of the three cases did the trial court find that the police officers were violating any law when they observed the growing marijuana. Defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that the police officers were not where they had a right to be at the time of the observation. See State v. Ainsworth, supra, 310 Or. at 622, 801 P.2d 749. Accordingly, the trial courts did not err when they denied defendants' respective motions to suppress. In State v. Gohring, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. In State v. Session , the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. In State v. Viar , the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.