441 P.3d 185
Or.2019Background
- Lebanon police, investigating alleged drug activity, asked Republic Services (sanitation company) to pick up defendants' closed garbage bin separately before regular pickup and deliver it to police.
- A Republic manager complied, replaced the bin with an empty cart, transported the bin to a company lot, and turned it over to police, who searched it and found drug evidence.
- Police used the garbage evidence to obtain a warrant to search defendants' home; defendants were charged and moved to suppress the garbage-derived evidence.
- Trial court found the sanitation manager acted as a police agent but concluded defendants had abandoned privacy/possessory interests; motions to suppress were denied.
- Court of Appeals affirmed (relying on Purvis and State v. Howard/Dawson). The Oregon Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lien/Wilverding) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants retained a privacy interest in closed curbside garbage | Defendants retained a protected privacy interest in closed curbside garbage placed for normal collection | State assumed arguendo defendants had privacy interest but argued it was lost once sanitation company took possession | Court: defendants do have a privacy interest in closed curbside garbage before any state-directed intrusion |
| Whether the sanitation-company manager acted as a police agent | Defendants: manager acted at police direction and therefore was a police agent whose conduct is attributable to the state | State: even if agent, existing precedent treats garbage handed to private hauler as effectively abandoned | Court: manager was a police agent (agency established by police solicitation and manager’s compliance) |
| Whether police invaded defendants’ Article I, §9 privacy right by using the agent to obtain and search the garbage without a warrant | Defendants: police (via agent) invaded privacy by procuring and searching garbage without a warrant; suppression required | State: reliance on Purvis and Howard/Dawson — once private actor obtained garbage, defendant’s privacy was lost and no state search occurred | Court: police invaded protected privacy interest; warrantless search violated Article I, §9; suppression required |
| Whether Purvis and Howard/Dawson remain controlling | Defendants: Purvis/Howard-Dawson are distinguishable or should be overruled in light of agency principles (Sines, Tucker) | State: those precedents govern and permit admission | Court: overruled Purvis and the portions of Howard/Dawson relying on it to the extent they permit state-directed use of private actors to defeat §9 protections |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Howard/Dawson, 342 Or. 635 (Or. 2007) (prior decision treating garbage collected by hauler as extinguishing defendant’s privacy interest)
- State v. Purvis, 249 Or. 404 (Or. 1968) (holding evidence collected by hotel maids was not a constitutionally forbidden search)
- State v. Sines, 359 Or. 41 (Or. 2016) (adopting common-law agency principles to determine when private conduct is attributable to the state under Article I, §9)
- State v. Tucker, 330 Or. 85 (Or. 2000) (holding private actor acted as a government agent when acting at state officer’s request and evidence obtained must be treated as a state search)
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1988) (U.S. Supreme Court holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash left for collection under the Fourth Amendment; discussed and distinguished)