State v. Roper, 294 P.3d 517

Defendant was charged with unlawful manufacture, unlawful delivery, unlawful possession of marijuana, unlawful possession of methamphetamine, and multiple counts of felon in possession of a firearm; trial court granted suppression for warrantless entry.
Officers, with no warrant, approached defendant’s rural Josephine County property, which had a boundary fence, a gate, and No Trespassing signs; gate was open and signs were not clearly observed by officers.
Four officers entered the driveway; front and back doors were approached; the defendant exited through the back; officers heard fans and smelled growing marijuana.
Defendant admitted no valid medical marijuana card and consented to a search, leading to discovery of marijuana plants, processed marijuana, methamphetamine, paraphernalia, and 16 firearms.
Defendant moved to suppress, arguing trespass; the trial court found some signs obscured but others clearly posted, credited officers’ testimony, but concluded officers failed to exercise due diligence in noticing signs and trespassed when they entered the driveway.
The State appealed; the trial court’s factual findings were reviewed; the court ultimately held defendant manifested an intent to exclude the public and affirmed suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did No Trespassing signs around the driveway establish intent to exclude the public?	State argues signs were insufficient to show exclusion intent.	Porter contends signs were sufficient to demonstrate intent to exclude.	Yes; signs, considering all circumstances, proved intent to exclude.

State v. Rhodes, 315 Or 191 (1992) (privacy interests; warrantless searches generally unreasonable)
State v. Unger, 252 Or App 478 (2012) (per se unreasonableness of warrantless searches; entry required for curtilage)
State v. Dixson/Digby, 307 Or 195 (1988) (intent to exclude shown by barriers or signs)
State v. Portrey, 134 Or App 460 (1995) (social norms; implied consent to approach front door absent exclusion)
State v. McIntyre Pereira, 123 Or App 436 (1993) (surrounding circumstances determine resident’s intent)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Reeves, 163 Or App 497 (1999) (multiple conspicuous signs indicate intent to exclude)
State v. Poulos, 149 Or App 351 (1997) (signs supporting exclusion intent when surrounding signs are present)
Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc., 246 Or App 26 (2011) (Private road sign and no trespassing indicators reflect exclusion intent)