State v. Holt

*345TANZER, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for public indecency, contending that it was error to deny his motion to suppress evidence of police observation of his conduct in a public restroom. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the conviction. We accepted to review the nature of reasonably expected privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.1

Defendant contended that the observations were unlawful because there was no warrant, no probable cause to search and no exigent circumstances. He also contended…