or possessory interest in the garbage once the sanitation company picked it up. Similarly, they have not identified any other subconstitutional right or relationship that would prohibit the sanitation company from doing what it did here. For instance, defendants have not claimed that their contract with the sanitation company limited what the company could do with the garbage once the company took possession of it. On this record, defendants retained no more right to control the disposition of the garbage once they turned it over to the sanitation company than they would had they abandoned it. As this court consistently has recognized, a person retains no constitutionally protected privacy interest in abandoned property. See State v. Purvis, 249 Or 404, 410-11, 438 P2d 1002 (1968) (<HOLDING>); State v. Crandall, 340 Or 645, 653, 136 P3d
recognizing the principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment holding that under article i section 9 a person has no constitutionally protected privacy interest in abandoned property holding that a person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment holding that any constitutionally protected property interest an employee has as a result of his employment contract is satisfied by payment of the full compensation due under the contract holding parental rights are constitutionally protected fundamental interest