must be made anew, “Does the policy of the statute as intended by the legislature require the majority’s conclusion?” Relying on the holding in Porter does not answer the question, because making a request to search does not implicate constitutional guarantees in the way that a search does. A “search,” such as what occurred in Porter, involves the invasion of a person’s privacy interests. State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 206, 729 P2d 524 (1986). Defendant’s privacy interests were not invaded by Kelly’s questions. Police officers may approach private citizens at any time and ask those kinds of questions without implicating any constitutional guarantees or invading privacy interests. State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400, 409, 813 P2d 28 (1991); see also State v. Kennedy, 290 Or 493, 624 P2d 99 (1981) (<HOLDING>). In State v. Underhill, 120 Or App 584, 853
holding that inquiring about whether the defendant was carrying narcotics as he was leaving the terminal building of the portland international airport was not a stop within the meaning of ors 131605 et seq nor did it violate the defendants constitutional rights holding that where plaintiff sought access to display cases in ohare airport terminal the display case and not the terminal itself was the relevant forum holding that in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute holding that plaintiffs had constitutional standing where they alleged violation of their rights under the wiretap act 18 usc  2510 et seq even though dismissal was warranted for failure to state a claim for relief thereunder holding that denial of vsf benefits to disabled retirees does not violate the ada the rehabilitation act 29 usc  791 et seq or the age discrimination in employment act of 1967 29 usc  621 et seq and that plaintiffs due process and first amendment claims were frivolous