State v. Taplin

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law:
  • Date Filed: 05-19-2021
  • Case #: A166010
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Powers, J. for the Court; Lagesen, P.J.; & Hodson, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Defendant was arrested on an outstanding warrant and strip-searched at the county jail. As officer’s finished inventorying his property, Defendant repeatedly requested to use the bathroom where it was later found that Defendant tried flushing a “white powdery” substance, later confirmed to be cocaine, down the toilet. At trial, Defendant’s motion to suppress the cocaine evidence was denied.  On appeal, Defendant challenged this denial and argued that he was unlawfully searched under both the state and federal constitutions when the deputy lifted a privacy curtain while he used the bathroom. In response, the state argued that Defendant did not “maintain a protected privacy interest in the holding cell.”  The state further argued that the deputy’s conduct was “nonetheless reasonable.”Privacy is limited within the context of a jail cell. See State v.  Lien/Wilverding, 364 Or 750, 760, 441 P3d 185 (2019). “[P]rivacy  interests  can  be  recognized  only  by  their  association  with  a private place where the claimant has the right to exclude others.” State v. Cromb, 220 Or App 315, 325, 185 P3d 1120, rev den, 345 Or 381 (2008). The court held that Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because Defendant didn’t possess a right to exclude others from his holding cell.  Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. Affirmed.

Advanced Search

Back to Top