State v. Cook (2001)

State v. Cook, 332 Or 601, 608-09, 34 P3d 156 (2001).

Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc., 331 Or at 660 ; see Cook, 332 Or at 607 (“[T]he determination whether a defendant has relinquished a constitutionally protected interest in an article of property involves both factual and legal questions [.]”).

Cook, 332 Or at 608 (articulating standard); see also State v. Brown, 348 Or 293, 302 , 232 P3d 962 (2010) (same). 4 They do not.

“Finally, for constitutional purposes, the question to be resolved in the present case is whether the defendant’s statements and conduct demonstrated that he relinquished all constitutionally protected interests in the articles of property * * 332 Or at 607-08 (citation omitted).

One of the officers testified that the defendant said that “he discovered a pile of clothing there and he thought he may be able to use some of the clothing, and so he was going through the clothing to find items which he may be able [to] use.” Cook, 332 Or at 604 (brackets in original).

Bunch, 305 Or App at 69 (“Abandonment requires an unequivocal manifestation of an intention to relinquish all constitutionally protected interests in the affected prop- erty.”); see also Cook, 332 Or at 608 (“[F]or constitutional purposes, the question to be resolved * * * is whether the defendant’s statements and conduct demonstrated that he relinquished all constitutionally protected interests in the articles of property.”).

As the Supreme Court presented it when considering the same issue, albeit on very different facts, “the question before us is ‘whether the defendant’s statements and conduct demonstrated that [she] relinquished all constitutionally protected interests in the articles of property.’” State v. Brown, 348 Or 293, 300 , 232 P3d 962 (2010) (quoting Cook, 332 Or at 608 (brackets in Brown)).

Cook, 332 Or at 607-08 (“ [B]ecause Article I, section 9, protects both possessory and privacy interests in effects, property law concepts of ownership and possession are relevant, though not always conclusive, in the factual and legal determination whether a defendant relinquished all constitutionally protected interests in an article of property.”).

See State v. Cook, 332 Or 601, 607-08 , 34 P3d 156 (2001) (“[B]ecause Article I, section 9, protects both posses-sory and privacy interests in effects, property law concepts of ownership and possession are relevant, though not always conclusive, in the factual and legal determination whether a defendant relinquished all constitutionally protected interests in an article of property.”).

See State v. Cook, 332 Or. 601, 607-08 , 34 P.3d 156 (2001) (recognizing that proposition).

See State v. Cook, 332 Or 601, 607-08 , 34 P3d 156 (2001) (explaining that, “because Article I, section 9, protects both possessory and privacy interests in effects, property law concepts of ownership and possession are rele- vant, though not always conclusive, in the factual and legal determination whether a defendant relinquished all con- stitutionally protected interests in an article of property”).

See State v. Cook, 332 Or 601, 607-08 , 34 P3d 156 (2001) (explaining that, “because Article I, section 9, protects both possessory and privacy interests in effects, property law concepts of ownership and possession are rele- vant, though not always conclusive, in the factual and legal determination whether a defendant relinquished all con- stitutionally protected interests in an article of property”).

See id. ; see also State v. Cook , 332 Or. 601 , 609, 34 P.3d 156 (2001) (defendant did not relinquish constitutionally protected privacy and possessory interest in personal property when he left items on the ground after police instructed him to "step out" of area near dumpster).

See, e.g., State v. Cook, 163 Or App 24, 31 , 986 P2d 1228 (1999), rev’d on other grounds, 332 Or 601 , 34 P3d 156 (2001) (an anonymous tip, when coupled with defendant’s conduct at and proximity to the scene, created reasonable suspicion); State v. Kosta, 75 Or App 713, 718 , 708 P2d 365 (1985), aff'd, 304 Or 549 , 748 P2d 72 (1987) (anonymous telephone calls contained sufficient information to provide the police with reasonable suspicion).

See State v. Cook, 332 Or 601, 607-08 , 34 P3d 156 (2001) (recognizing that proposition).

Compare State v. Cook, 332 Or 601, 605-06 , 34 P3d 156 (2001) (defendant who was next to garbage dumpster sorting clothing into duffel bag “had a possessory and privacy interest in the bag and the clothing”).

See id.