Oregon Supreme Ct - April 14, 2016
by: Aalvarez • April 15, 2016 • no comments
Search and Seizure - Searches by Private Parties - "State Action"
Determining whether a private party's actions constitute state action for the purposes of Article I, section 9 requires an examination of common law agency principles to determine whether the state took affirmative steps to direct or participate in the private actor's actions and whether the state, through statements or conduct, indicated to a private party that he or she could or should act on behalf of the state. In summation, the ultimate issue is whether the state's conduct would have conveyed to a private party that he or she was authorized to act on the behalf of the state.
Here, the Oregon Supreme Court reverses the Oregon Court of Appeals' decision which held that a housekeeper's seizure of underwear and its delivery to state officials in a child sex abuse case constituted state action. In this case, a housekeeper contacted DHS officials about suspicions of child abuse and offered to take evidence from the home and give it to the officer. The DHS worker noted that he could not tell her to do this but offered to have the evidence tested and also delayed a procedural safety check (though the housekeeper was not informed of this) in the hope that the evidence would be procured. In ruling that the housekeeper was a "state actor" when she seized the underwear, the Court of Appeals reasoned that a DHS worker knew what the housekeeper planned to do after speaking with her and that she was likely to do it. Second, the DHS worker had communicated with the housekeeper about her plans to seize the underwear and offered her law enforcement support if she conducted the seizure. Lastly, the Court of Appeals relied on the fact that the DHS worker had delayed a safety check to allow the housekeeper to accomplish the seizure of the underwear.
In reversing the Oregon Court of Appeals, the Oregon Supreme Court applied common law agency principles to determine that the housekeeper was not acting as a state actor at the time of the seizure. The Oregon Supreme Court based its ruling on the fact that it was the housekeeper's choice, not the DHS worker's suggestion that prompted the housekeeper to seize the underwear. The DHS worker did not direct or request the housekeeper to take the underwear. Although DHS knew or understood what the housekeeper might do, the "common-law agency analysis that we outlined above looks first to objective manifestations by the principal to the agent that the agent should or may act on behalf of the principle." Because there was little, if any, "affirmative encouragement, initiation, or instigation," by DHS on behalf of the housekeeper, the housekeeper was not a state actor for the purposes of Article I, section 9. State v. Sines, 359 Or. 41 (2016)
