the issuance of the search warrant was based on a previous search which violated defendant’s privacy rights under Article I, section 9. The taint of that previous search invalidates the later warrants.” Id. at 693. At the outset, we must determine whether the officers were legitimately on the premises when the marijuana was detected. In his petition for review, defendant argues that the Court of Appeals majority and specially concurring opinions erred in characterizing the deputies’ actions as a training exercise. We understand defendant’s argument to be that the officers’ real intention was to search for contraband, not to train Breaker, and that such a search would exceed the scope of the consent given by the owners of the facility. See State v. Tanner, 304 Or 312, 745 P2d 757 (1987) (<HOLDING>). The trial court below made no express finding
holding that a state law violates article i when it has the likely effect of disadvantaging a class of candidates for national office and has the sole purpose of indirectly creating qualifications in addition to those set forth in article i holding that refusal to proceed to trial by arbitrarily abating case violates article i section 13 of the texas constitution holding that when a person entrusts effects to another and the police discover those effects in the others home by means of a search that violates article i section 9 the search also violates the entrustors rights under article i section 9 holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises recognizing that rights under article i section 11 are subject to reasonable limitations