State v. Voyles, 382 P.3d 583

Defendant was convicted of 18 counts of second-degree animal neglect and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm; this opinion addresses only the suppression issue affecting four neglect counts (Counts 15–18).
Sheriff deputies executed a warrant to search defendant’s rural property and, separately and without warrants, entered two third-party properties (Hopkins and Fox Creek) where defendant had boarded two horses at each location.
The third-party property owners (Hopkins and the Fox Creek owners) gave deputies access and delivered the four horses to county personnel; no written boarding or lease agreements were introduced at trial.
Trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding owners’ consent justified both entry and the handing-over/seizure of the horses.
On appeal, defendant argued the owners lacked authority to consent to seizure of her horses and she retained possessory interests in them despite boarding; the state argued the owners’ consent to enter and hand over the horses was sufficient.
Appellate court held the owners had authority to consent to entry onto their land, but the state failed to prove defendant relinquished her possessory interest in the horses; seizure without a warrant (or another exception) violated Article I, §9 and was not harmless as to Counts 15–18.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether third-party owners validly consented to deputies’ entry onto their properties	Owners’ property ownership and voluntary access authorized deputies to enter	Consent to enter is irrelevant if owners lacked authority over the specific stalls/pastures	Held: Owners had actual authority to consent to entry onto their properties
Whether owners’ consent to entry authorized seizure of defendant’s boarded horses	Owners’ handing over horses to deputies authorized seizure without warrant	Defendant retained possessory interest in horses and owners lacked authority to transfer them	Held: Owners’ consent did not authorize seizure; defendant retained possessory interest
Whether a warrantless seizure was justified by other exceptions (plain view, exigency, probable cause)	State asserted consent sufficed; relied on prior cases permitting seizure of items found on consented premises	Defendant: no plain-view or exigency shown; no evidence owners could lawfully give up horses	Held: No plain-view/probable-cause/exigency shown; seizure unconstitutional absent warrant
Harmless error as to convictions based on evidence from seized horses	State: convictions should stand	Defendant: seizure affected essential evidence for Counts 15–18	Held: Error was not harmless; convictions on Counts 15–18 reversed and remanded

State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (1993) (factual review standards for suppression rulings under Article I, §9)
State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475 (2015) (third‑party consent valid only if person has authority; totality of circumstances test)
State v. Brown, 348 Or 293 (2010) (whether defendant relinquished property interests analyzed by statements/conduct and legal relationship)
State v. Howard/Dawson, 342 Or 635 (2007) (separate analyses for searches of premises and seizures of personal property)
State v. Cook, 332 Or 601 (2001) (state bears burden to prove warrantless search lawful)
State v. Sargent, 323 Or 455 (1996) (plain‑view seizure principles for items in locations officers were lawfully entitled to be)
State v. Tanner, 304 Or 312 (1987) (distinguishing searches and seizures; possessory interests analyzed separately)
State v. Rivas, 99 Or App 23 (1989) (third‑party consent can permit warrantless search of property owned or controlled by third party — limited by authority)
State v. Bartley, 121 Or App 301 (1993) (discussing seizure of items found in premises searched with homeowner consent — limited by subsequent Supreme Court law)
State v. Ventris, 164 Or App 220 (1999) (seizure justified where officer had independent probable cause and item was placed in officer’s plain view by owner)