Court Opinion

ID: 9614262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:23:55.428982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:34.754446
License: Public Domain

*238De MUNIZ, J.,
concurring.
I agree with the lead opinion’s disposition as to defendant Evans.
I feel compelled to follow State v. MacDonald, 105 Or App 102, 803 P2d 1211 (1990), rev den 311 Or 433 (1991), and other recent decisions by this court that hold that a defendant who denies having a possessoiy or ownership interest in the contraband that he or she is charged with possessing is foreclosed from seeking its exclusion under Article I, section 9. For that reason, I also concur in the lead opinion’s disposition as to defendant Morton. However, if we were writing on a clean slate, I would reach the opposite conclusion concerning Morton. I also note that the Supreme Court has not yet written on this slate.
In State v. Simons, 86 Or App 34, 738 P2d 790, rev den 304 Or 437 (1987), we held that, when possession is a material element of the charged offense, it is denied by a not guilty plea, and the defendant is not required to claim an interest in the contraband in order to seek its exclüsion under Article I, section 9, as having been obtained through an unlawful search or seizure. In MacDonald, we reached the opposite conclusion. Although we acknowledged that “it is incongruous to require a defendant to take a position at a pretrial hearing contrary to his position at trial,” id. at 105, we felt compelled by the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in State v. Kosta, 304 Or 549, 748 P2d 72 (1987), to so conclude. We explained:
“In Kosta, the police had intercepted a package on a Federal Express delivery truck. The defendant had not caused the package to be transported, nor was he the addressee, intended recipient or an individual with an identifiable interest in the package at the time of its seizure. The package was subjected to a sniff by a trained police dog. Police officers opened it and identified the contents as cocaine, after which it was resealed and delivered to the addressee. The defendant picked up the package, after which he was charged with and convicted of possession of a controlled substance. The court held that the defendant’s Article I, section 9, rights were not violated by the police conduct of stopping the delivery truck and exposing the package to the police dog, because he had failed to articulate any protected interest in *239the package at the time of the intrusion. 304 Or at 554.” Id. at 104-05.
We went on to say in MacDonald that our reasoning in Simons
“ignores the purpose of the exclusionary rule of section 9, which is to recognize the personal right of every individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. See e.g., State v. Tanner, 304 Or 312, 315, 745 P2d 757 (1987); State v. Davis, 295 Or 227, 231, 666 P2d 802 (1983). When a defendant challenges the lawfulness of a search or seizure, the issue is not whether he has ‘standing’ to make a legal challenge, rather, it is whether there has been a significant interference with his possessory or ownership interests in the property. See State v. Tanner, supra, 304 Or at 315. Although it is incongruous to require a defendant to take a position at a pretrial hearing contrary to his position at trial, the result is compelled by section 9, which applies regardless of the nature of the offense. Therefore, we hold that, notwithstanding the possessory aspect of the offense, ‘[i]t is the defendant’s burden to establish a protected right in the particular item of property before he can challenge the alleged violation.’ State v. Nelson, 76 Or App 67, 71, 708 P2d 1153 (1985). Defendant failed to meet that burden when he declined to claim any protected interest in the bindle.” Id. at 105-06 (footnote omitted).
There is a difference, however, between the Kosta situation and the situation in MacDonald and this case. In Kosta, the basis for the holding was that the defendant did not have the requisite interest in the drugs at the time of the search. Here and in MacDonald, the basis for the holdings is that the defendants did not acknowledge that, at the time of the searches or seizures, they had that interest. That distinction is critical. In the context of a possession crime, it is entirely consistent in the Kosta situation for the defendant to have lacked the necessary interest at the time of the search, but to have unlawfully possessed the drugs later. Conversely, in MacDonald and this case, or at least under the “confess it or waive it” rule that they state, the possessory interest question and the question of guilt coincide. For the state to ultimately prove guilt, it must establish that defendant had the very interest in the drugs that she earlier denied having, although that denial precluded her from contesting the permissibility of their use as evidence. In a very real sense, the *240MacDonald rule means that the defendant must choose between self-incrimination and having no redress against an unlawful search or seizure.
I am not prepared to say that the understanding of Kosta that MacDonald states is implausible. There is language in Kosta that can be read as placing an affirmative burden on defendants of the kind that MacDonald establishes. See 304 Or at 554. However, although MacDonald’s interpretation of Kosta is not implausible, it is also far from the only plausible understanding that the language or logic of Kosta allows. Stated another way, this court should adhere to its precedent, but the Supreme Court has not yet taken the occasion to consider whether the holdings in MacDonald and here bear out the intended meaning of its precedent.1
Warren, Riggs and Armstrong, JJ., join in this concurrence.

 State v. Nelson, 76 Or App 67, 71, 708 P2d 1153 (1985), which is quoted in MacDonald, is of little independent authoritative weight. It predates Simons, Kosta and Tanner. If it suggests anywhere in its text which constitution it is talking about, I do not find the reference, and the only authority it cites for the proposition in question is a case that turns solely on Fourth Amendment analysis.