an agency argument on nearly identical facts in where we held that a police officer "supplying information to the [school] principal with the intent of initiating the search and his presence on school premises during the investigation [did] not establish that the principal and [school] security officer acted as police agents." 754 P.2d at 385. Beyond motive, nothing in the record reveals that the government "encourage[d], initiate[d], or instigate[d]" Beesley's search. Smythe, 84 F.3d at 1243. Beesley's telephone call on May 24 alerting TFD of the possibility of arson and his subsequent offer to test evidence from the crime seene were entirely unsolicited. TFD merely accepted Beesley's assistance, and that is not enough to create an agency relationship. See Chastain, 733 P.2d at 1214 (<HOLDING>). In sum, we conclude that the trial court
holding that the coast guards decision not to regulate propeller guards did not impliedly preempt petitioners tort claims holding that the state police is a state agency holding a tape of a telephone call was admissible because one party to the call consented to the recording recognizing implied private action under the collection agency act holding that private security guards unsolicited call to police did not establish agency