Court Opinion

ID: 9572816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:44:53.840374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:25.635075
License: Public Domain

BUTTLER, J.,
dissenting.
Assuming, arguendo, that defendant ultimately abandoned the briefcase, he did not do so until after the police had opened the envelopes and tested their contents without a warrant.
*449The majority, after correctly stating the law of abandonment, goes on to say:
“Defendant did not abandon the briefcase when it fell out of his truck; he was unaware that it had fallen out. He subsequently attempted to find it by searching for it and by ordering a classified ad. However, when he learned that the sheriff had the briefcase, he made no further effort to claim or recover it and discontinued activities already begun. Nothing the police did caused him to forego his interest in the property. He did not know that they had opened the envelopes and had tested their contents. Cancellation of the ad and his failure to undertake any efforts to recover the briefcase were specific acts of abandonment. From the stipulated facts, it is clear that defendant had no intention thereafter of ever asserting any ownership of or interest in the briefcase or its contents.” 89 Or App at 448. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear from the majority’s application of the law that no act of abandonment occurred until the ad was cancelled and defendant thereafter failed to undertake any efforts to recover the briefcase, both of which “specific acts” occurred after the envelopes were opened. The majority has reached the wrong conclusion based on its application of the law to the facts.
Given that defendant did not abandon the briefcase before the critical time, the envelopes remained his effects, and opening them and testing their contents invaded his privacy interest in them. State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 729 P2d 524 (1986). Because there was nothing about the envelopes that “announced their contents,” the police were prohibited by Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution from opening them and testing their contents. State v. Owens, supra.
Accordingly, I would reverse and remand.
Newman, J., joins in this dissent.