State v. Sines, 328 P.3d 747

Background

Defendant was convicted of four counts of first-degree sexual abuse of his nine-year-old daughter (T); jury acquitted or deadlocked on other counts. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
Housekeeper (Offizer) and coworker (Taylor) took a soiled pair of T’s underwear from defendant’s laundry without a warrant and gave it to DHS contact Cleavenger and then to police.
DHS delayed a mandated immediate safety check for five days after learning Offizer might obtain the underwear; Cleavenger discussed testing and offered to “hook her up” with law enforcement.
Police delivered the underwear to the state crime lab; lab testing (without a warrant) revealed spermatozoa, which prompted Detective Quick to apply for and obtain a search warrant.
Warranted searches seized additional garments (nightgown, pajama bottoms, bathing suit, jeans) that also tested positive for spermatozoa; those results were admitted at trial.
Trial court denied suppression, finding no state action in the private seizure and that police conduct and testing were justified; Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding the underwear seizure was state action and unlawful, and that suppression error was not harmless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether private taking of underwear was "state action" under OR. Const. art. I, §9	Seizure was private — no warrant needed; any police involvement was minimal and lawful	Cleary state-involved: DHS and police knowledge, encouragement, and delay of safety check made the private seizure state action	Court held seizure was state action because DHS knew it was likely, delayed safety check, and offered law-enforcement support
Whether testing/acceptance by police of knowingly stolen underwear was an additional unlawful seizure/search	Police acceptance and lab testing were reasonable steps and based on objectively reasonable belief of evidence	Acceptance and testing followed an unlawful, warrantless state-action seizure and required suppression	Court concluded the initial seizure was unlawful; did not reach separately on testing but suppressed underwear-derived evidence
Whether evidence from clothing seized by warrant (derived from underwear testing) should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful seizure	Even if underwear suppressed, other seized garments would still provide independent evidence	Underwear testing triggered the warrant; other clothing were seized pursuant to that warrant and thus derived from unlawful action	Court held defendant showed minimal nexus; state did not defeat causal link — derivative evidence should have been suppressed
Whether erroneous admission of underwear-related evidence was harmless error	Evidence from other garments would make underwear evidence cumulative; jury acquitted on intercourse counts so physical evidence irrelevant to convictions for touching	Physical evidence was used across counts in closing and bolstered sexual-contact claims; thus not harmless	Court held error was not harmless and reversed convictions on Counts 1–4

Key Cases Cited

State v. Baker, 350 Or. 641 (2011) (standard of review for suppression hearing factual findings)
State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (1993) (presumption about trial court findings when facts allow multiple inferences)
State v. Tucker, 330 Or. 85 (2000) (private searches at government request can trigger Article I, §9)
State v. Lowry, 37 Or. App. 641 (1979) (police involvement can transform private conduct into state action)
State v. Waterbury, 50 Or. App. 115 (1981) (limited police "implicit encouragement" may be insufficient to create state action)
State v. Tanner, 304 Or. 312 (1987) (Article I, §9 protects against state action, not private searches)
Becich v. State, 13 Or. App. 415 (1973) (officials may not participate indirectly in otherwise illegal searches)
State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7 (2005) (burdens for suppression and for proving derivative evidence exclusion)
State v. Maiden, 222 Or. App. 9 (2008) (harmless error analysis compares quality of erroneously admitted evidence with other evidence)