OR: Horse owner didn’t lose privacy interest in horses being cared for by another on other’s property

Third-party property owners who were boarding defendant’s horses had the actual authority to consent to the sheriff’s entry onto their properties. Defendant didn’t have any authority to exclude the owners from particular parts of the properties where her horses stayed. The officers, however, invaded defendant’s possessory interest when they seized her horses with the consent of the third parties. There was no evidence of a formal written agreement. The evidence supported the conclusion that she retained her possessory interest in her horses, was supposed to care for them, and was not abandoning her ownership by merely boarding them elsewhere. State v. Voyles, 280 Ore. App. 579, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1016 (Aug. 31, 2016) (decided under state constitution).