# State v. Tanner

> Oregon Supreme Court · November 17, 1987 · 304 Or. 312

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570373

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on Review, v. WILLIAM CALVIN TANNER, Petitioner on Review
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 17, 1987
- **Citations:** 304 Or. 312; 745 P.2d 757; 1987 Ore. LEXIS 1972
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Campbell
- **Judges:** Lent, Campbell, Gillette, Peterson, Jones
- **Cited by:** 140 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570373

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[sjearches and seizures are separate acts calling for separate analysis” and that “[i]f the police violated any right of [the] defendant’s, it was a right against the search that uncovered the effects, not some right in the effects themselves”
- holding that, when a person entrusts effects to another, and the police discover those effects in the other’s home by means of a search that *24 violates Article I, section 9, the search also violates the entrustor’s rights under Article I, section 9
- concluding that the defendant retained a privacy interest in items that he entrusted to friends as security for a loan so that, when an unlawful search of the friends’ home uncovered the defendant’s property, his privacy interests were violated
- holding that a defendant who had pledged property, which turned out to be stolen, had a right to reclaim the pledged property and had not abandoned the property for the purpose of the Article I, section 9, analysis of defendant’s privacy rights

## Opinion text

CAMPBELL, J.,
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion. In State v. Davis, 295 Or 227 , 666 P2d 802 (1983) I joined in an opinion by then Associate Justice Peterson where he dissented in part and concurred in part. Among other things, he said:
*324 “I also disassociate myself from the exclusionary rule discussion on pages 230-37 of the majority opinion. The basis for the majority’s holding is that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated. The evidence therefore should be excluded. The discussion and holding beginning on page 231 with Weeks v. United States, 232 US 383 , 34 S Ct 341 , 58 L Ed 652 (1914), and ending on page 237 with State v. Laundy, 103 Or 443 , 204 P 958 , 206 P 290 (1922), is unnecessary.”
295 Or at 257-58 .
I still agree that the dictum on pages 230-37 of the Davis opinion was unnecessary. However, it was a correct statement of the law and for that reason I have no hesitation in joining the majority in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570373. Public record. Not legal advice.