State v. Gonzalez

In determining whether a guest has a privacy right when in someone else’s home, “the scope of an invitation to be on or to use property is inherently a fact-based inquiry that is affected by property-law principles.” State v. Howard/Dawson, 342 Or 635, 642, 157 P3d 1189 (2007).

Defendant appealed a  conviction for one count of delivery of methamphetamine and one count of possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained under a search warrant. On appeal, Defendant argued he was a guest in the home and had a protected privacy interest, meaning the evidence discovered that supported his conviction should have been suppressed because the warrant was in violation of his privacy rights. In response, the State argued Defendant did not have a privacy interest in the area where the evidence was found, and even if he did, the search warrant was still valid. In determining whether a guest has a privacy right in someone else’s home, “the scope of an invitation to be on or to use property is inherently a fact-based inquiry that is affected by property-law principles.” State v. Howard/Dawson, 342 Or 635, 642, 157 P3d 1189 (2007). The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress because there was legally sufficient evidence on record to determine Defendant did not have protected privacy interest in the area where the evidence was found. Affirmed.