State v. Foster, 347 Or. 1

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court held that a deputy's observation of the defendant through an open, lighted bedroom window while serving a restraining order did not violate Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution or the Fourth Amendment. The court applied the officer-safety doctrine, concluding that the deputies had specific and articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion of an immediate threat and that the deputy's position near the window was a reasonable safety precaution. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the circuit court's denial of the motion to suppress.

Holdings

1. Specific and articulable facts supporting an officer's reasonable suspicion of an immediate threat may be historical or contemporaneous; the timing of the officer's knowledge is not dispositive.
2. The deputy's decision to walk approximately 20 feet past the front door and look through an open, lighted window was a reasonable officer-safety precaution under the totality of the circumstances and did not violate Article I, section 9.
3. The deputy's observation through the open window did not violate the Fourth Amendment because specific and articulable facts supported a reasonable fear for officer safety and the chosen observation position was a reasonable response to that danger.
4. The court declined to address the argument that the officers unlawfully entered the residence without a warrant because defendant apparently had not raised that argument in the trial court or Court of Appeals.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the deputy's positioning outside and observation through the open window constituted an unreasonable search under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.
2. Whether the deputy's actions were justified under Oregon's officer-safety doctrine.
3. Whether the observation and resulting seizure violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
4. Whether the court should address defendant's alternative argument that the officers unlawfully entered the residence without a warrant.

Disposition

reversed