BY RACHEL CHEESEMAN

SALEM- The Oregon State Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search by police officers of two bags left in a hotel room did not violate the privacy rights of Sheena Brown under the Oregon or the United States Constitutions.

Deputy public defender, Dave Ferry, defended Brown in the case arguing that the evidence obtained in the warrantless search of her bags should be suppressed. The Washington County Circuit Court and Court of Appeals ruled for suppression of the evidence, but the decision was reversed by the Supreme Court on May 27.

“I respectfully disagree with the court’s analysis,” Ferry said. “I see the case as a potential setback to privacy law in the state of Oregon.”

The opinion of the court stated that police officers went to a hotel room rented by Taunice Beal with a credit card belonging to Katrina Ivanov to investigate potential identity theft. Officers asked if the occupants, none of whom were Beal or Ivanov, had any items in the room. Brown repeatedly denied owning two bags located next to a pair of sandals she had claimed. Brown was told the bags would remain locked in the room after she left.

The police were contacted after Beal returned. Officer Pfaff went to the room, and Beal consented to a search of the room, saying “[y]ou can search whatever you want.” A search of the first bag revealed identification indicating Brown owned the bag and evidence of identity theft. Brown was later charged with 22 counts of identity theft.

Brown argued that the warrantless search and confiscation of her bags violated her right to privacy under the Oregon and the United States Constitutions and that the evidence obtained therefore should be suppressed.

Defending attorneys argued that she had left her items in a room rented by a person whom she knew, and therefore she had not intended to permanently relinquish her privacy or possessory interests in the bags.

Judge Paul J. De Muniz wrote in his opinion that a person need not permanently relinquish these interests. The matter at hand, he wrote, was “whether the defendant’s statements and conduct demonstrated that [s]he relinquished all constitutionally protected interests in the articles of property,” which he wrote Brown had done by denying ownership of the bags and leaving them in Beal’s room.

Any privacy interests in the bags at the time of the search, he wrote, were retained by Beal, which he relinquished by consenting to a search of the room.

“The court basically says in no uncertain terms that nobody could reasonably expect privacy in this situation,” Ferry said, calling this conclusion “disconnected from reality.”

“It’s pulling a fast one,” he said. “It’s substituting judicial fiction for common sense.”

Stephen Armitage, a staff attorney for the Oregon Supreme Court said that he could not comment on the ruling.

“In general the court’s opinions are intended to speak for themselves,” he said.

The Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union also declined to comment saying that they had not been involved in the case.

Ferry found the ruling inconsistent with what had been established as law, which required that a third party have authority to consent to a search. For purposes of this case, that would require Brown to know her bags were going to be searched by police and to give consent.

Ferry said that previously, citizens could only waive their privacy rights to property by either abandoning it permanently, or by knowingly doing so by consenting to a search. Brown, he said, had done neither of these things by disclaiming ownership and leaving them with Beal.

This ruling, Ferry said, created a means for citizens to unknowingly waive their rights to privacy.

“That opens a pretty big door,” he said.

When asked if there were plans to pursue the case further, he said that pursuing certiorari with the United State Supreme Court was “under consideration.”