Decided by the Supreme Court on December 31, 2009. In something of a companion case to Heckathorne, the Court held that a shopowner did not have a privacy interest in illegally-recorded survelliance tapes because the tapes were turned over to the police by the defendant’s employees after the employees watched the tapes. The Court cited federal cases from as far back as 1921 and held that the employees’ viewing of the tapes and description to the police of what was on the tapes removed the need for a warrant to be issued. DeMuniz and two other justices dissented, stating that prior jurisprudence in this area would dictate that the evidence should have been suppressed.

[This is one of many case summaries I hope to write about relevant criminal cases decided by the Oregon Court of Appeals and Oregon Supreme Court.]

In State v. Heckathorne, decided by the Supreme Court on December 31, 2009, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the search of an opaque container that was giving off odors consistent with anhydrous ammonia. The Court relied on Owens and Herbert in deciding that the contents of a container may be revealed by the container’s “feel or smell”, and that training and expertise may turn it into PC for a search.