State v. Jones, 380 P.3d 1132

Trooper Mullins found a van parked on a gravel road; defendant was at the rear, got into the driver’s seat, and later exited when officers approached.
Mullins observed altered registration tags, ran the plate, and learned the plates were not registered.
Owner Matsen told officers he lent the van to defendant, said defendant was late returning it, and consented to officers securing/searching the van.
Officers asked (or one officer asked) defendant whether he had items in the van; defendant asserted certain bags of clothing as his.
Mullins searched the van but excluded the items defendant claimed; a container discovered in the van (not affirmatively claimed) held methamphetamine, which defendant later admitted was his.
Trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding defendant abandoned any protected interest by failing to claim the container when given opportunity; defendant was convicted and appealed.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Matsen’s consent to search the van justified searching defendant’s belongings inside	Owner’s consent to search vehicle allowed search of van and its contents	Owner lacked authority to consent to search defendant’s private belongings; Matsen’s consent insufficient	Rejected: owner’s consent did not authorize search of another’s belongings under Article I, §9
Whether defendant abandoned his Article I, §9 privacy/possessory interests by not claiming the container	Defendant effectively abandoned unclaimed items by identifying some belongings and failing to claim others	Silence or claiming some items does not equivocate to relinquishing all other interests; abandonment requires unequivocal manifestation	Reversed: state failed to prove abandonment; claiming some bags did not show intent to abandon the container
Burden of proof for abandonment in warrantless-search context	State bears burden to prove abandonment	Same	Affirmed: state failed to meet its burden here
Validity of “apparent authority” to consent under Article I, §9	Police could reasonably rely on apparent authority to search van contents	Apparent authority is inconsistent with Article I, §9’s consent requirement	Not adopted: Supreme Court rejected apparent-authority rationale in Bonilla; state’s argument fails

State v. Pilgrim, 276 Or App 747 (2016) (abandonment requires an unequivocal manifestation of intent to relinquish protected interests)
State v. Paulson, 313 Or 346 (1992) (consent exception requires consent by someone with authority)
State v. Cook, 332 Or 601 (2001) (review standard for Article I, §9 search/seizure questions)
State v. McClatchey, 259 Or App 531 (2013) (abandonment can eliminate Article I, §9 protections if relinquished)
State v. McKee, 272 Or App 372 (2015) (state bears burden to prove abandonment)
State v. Will, 131 Or App 498 (1994) (owner’s authority to consent to vehicle search does not extend to another’s personal belongings)
State v. Edgell, 153 Or App 108 (1998) (same limitation on owner consent to search another’s effects)
State v. Standish, 197 Or App 96 (2005) (express disclaimer of ownership may support abandonment when no protected interest is asserted)
State v. Linville, 190 Or App 185 (2003) (explicit denial of ownership can constitute abandonment of an item)
State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475 (2015) (rejected “apparent authority” as a basis for consent under Article I, §9)