State v. Faulkner

The majority errs when it holds that Churma’s act of shining the flashlight into defendant’s truck was not a search within the meaning of Article I, section 9. It states in a conclusory fashion that “use of the flashlight to see what was otherwise in plain view did not significantly impair defendant’s freedom from scrutiny and was, therefore, not a search[.]” 102 Or App at 421. I disagree.

The purpose for which Churma was lawfully on the premises was to conduct an investigation of a domestic dispute. He did not make a traffic stop. See State v. Jackson, 296 Or 430, 438 n 4, 677 P2d 21 (1984).…