Court Opinion

ID: 9554035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:40:26.285447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:52.428848
License: Public Domain

*368NEWMAN, J.,
dissenting.
The majority states that defendant did not raise below the issue of whether the flyover was a purposeful search that violated Article I, section 9. During the omnibus hearing, defendant questioned the lawfulness of the aerial observation and explicitly cited Article I, section 9, as authority. On appeal, defendant claims that the flyover violated Article I, section 9. Both below and here, defendant did enough to raise the issue.
To bolster its refusal to consider defendant’s position respecting the flyover, the majority cites State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 766 P2d 373 (1988). That case, however, does not support the majority. In Hitz, the court stated:
“We have previously drawn attention to the distinctions between raising an issue at trial, identifying a source for a claimed position, and making a particular argument. * * * The first ordinarily is essential, the second less so, the third least.” 307 Or at 188. (Emphasis in original.)
At the omnibus hearing, defendant raised the issue by challenging the flyover as an unlawful search. Moreover, he identified the source of his position as Article I, section 9. He did not make the particular argument below that he makes here — that a police aerial observation is a search under Article I, section 9, if it is a purposeful effort to see activities on a person’s land. Defendant, however, did enough. Although he did not make the particular argument, his omission is not surprising (and should not be fatal). This court had not yet decided State v. Ainsworth, 95 Or App 240, 770 P2d 58, rev allowed 308 Or 158 (1989). As of this writing the Supreme Court has not decided it either. The majority should address the merits of defendant’s argument.
Turning to the merits, a police aerial observation is a search under Article I, section 9, if it is a purposeful effort to see activities on a person’s land. State v. Ainsworth, supra, 95 Or App at 245. The state argues that defendant failed to show that the affiant’s observations were the result of a purposeful effort. Because the initial observation was made without a warrant, however, the state has the burden to show that the information in the warrant was legally obtained. ORS 133.693(4). It failed to show that the aerial observation was *369not a purposeful effort to see what was on defendant’s land. See State v. Nevler, 95 Or App 694, 770 P2d 956 (1989).
The majority errs when it affirms the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress.
I dissent.