Court Opinion

ID: 9604695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:25:31.1317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:23.431087
License: Public Domain

WARREN, J.,
dissenting.
Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the attachment of an electronic locator to the exterior of defendant’s vehicle resulted in a seizure within the meaning of Article I, section 9,1 dissent.
A seizure occurs when there is “a significant interference with a person’s possessory or ownership interest” in his effect. State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 207, 729 P2d 524 (1986). In affirming the trial court’s exclusion of the evidence discovered in the vehicle the majority holds that the warrantless placement of an electronic locator was a significant interference with defendant’s possessory interest in his vehicle and, hence, a seizure. Although attachment of the locator enabled the state to follow and locate defendant, it in no way affected his ownership or possessory interest. He had the full use of his vehicle for any and all purposes, legal and illegal.
Defendant had a constitutionally protected right to the possession and use of his vehicle. The fact that the locator enabled the police to observe him making use of it for an illegal purpose did not interfere with his possessory interest. The only interference was with defendant’s successful use of the vehicle for criminal purposes and his ability to evade the law. Those are not interests which are constitutionally protected.
Because the majority holds that there was a seizure of defendant’s vehicle, it does not decide whether, assuming that there was not a seizure, there was a search. A search is an invasion of a person’s privacy interests in his or her effect. State v. Owens, supra, 302 Or at 206. Although defendant may have desired to remain unobserved in his activities, he had no privacy interests in the use of his vehicle in a public place. See State v. Holt, 291 Or 343, 630 P2d 854 (1981). Accordingly, under the state constitution there was no search.
*423The majority is correct that the precise question involved in this case has not been decided by the United States Supreme Court under the Fourth Amendment. However, in United States v. Pretzinger, 542 F2d 517, 520 (9th Cir 1976), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held, on similar facts, that there was no search under the federal constitution. The analysis in that case is persuasive, and I would hold on the facts of this case that there was no federal constitutional violation.
The majority’s disapproval of the police tactic used in this case has resulted in a distorted analysis of constitutional law. The fact that there may have been a civil trespass to defendant’s personal property or that we may not like the surveillance tactics used does not mean that there was a search or a seizure.