Box v. Oregon State Police ( 2021 )

802
On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed June 16, and appellant’s
response to petition for reconsideration filed June 18; reconsideration allowed,
former opinion (311 Or App 348, 492 P3d 685) modified and adhered to as
modified August 11; petition for review denied December 23, 2021 (369 Or 110)
Bernadette BOX,
Personal Representative of
the Estate of Robert Clinton Box,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF OREGON,
Department of Oregon State Police,
Defendant-Respondent.
Josephine County Circuit Court
16CV13330; A166624
492 P3d 1292
Pat Wolke, Judge.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and David B. Thompson, Assistant
Attorney General, for petition.
David D. Park for response.
Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Landau, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and
adhered to as modified.
Cite as 313 Or App 802 (2021) 803
PER CURIAM
The state petitions for reconsideration of our deci-
sion in Box v. Oregon State Police, 311 Or App 348, 492 P3d
685 (2021). We reject without further discussion all but one
of petitioner’s arguments, that we erroneously described a
fact relevant to the troopers’ trespass. Petitioner contends
that we incorrectly stated that it was undisputed that no
light was illuminated near the rear patio door. We agree
that there is evidence in the record from which a reasonable
factfinder could infer that there was a source of light from
the rear patio area, not only from the workshop. We there-
fore grant reconsideration and modify our opinion accord-
ingly. We delete the challenged sentence, which states, “The
only other light came from the workshop.” Id. at 379. We also
modify the sentence that states, “There was a light on at
the workshop, but not in the rear patio, and no trespassing
signs were posted.” Id. at 381. As modified, that sentence
states, “There was light coming from the rear patio area and
the workshop, which had a no trespassing sign posted to its
front.”
We previously concluded that the evidence did not
evince Box’s implied consent for the troopers to contact him
in the rear patio area. Viewing the evidence, including that
of the rear patio light, in the light most favorable to peti-
tioner, we reach the same conclusion. We therefore adhere
to our original opinion as modified.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified
and adhered to as modified.