of the car was searched, no personal right of defendant under [Article I, section 9,] was violated.”). 4 The state also argues that defendant had no privacy interest in the backpacks because he disclaimed ownership of them. However, a person in possession of a container may have a protected interest in the container even if he or she denies ownership of it. State v. Morton, 326 Or 466, 469-70, 953 P2d 374 (1998). It was clear that defendant had possessed the backpacks, and nothing he said to the officers demonstrated an intention to relinquish a possessory or privacy interest in them. Rather, he told Rager that another person had packed the backpacks for him, and he declined to consent to the search of the backpacks. Cf. State v. Standish, 197 Or App 96, 103, 104 P3d 624 (2005) (<HOLDING>). We reject the state’s argument without
holding that a defendant was not entitled to the affirmative defense where the evidence did not support his contention that he did not aid in the homicidal act holding there was enough evidence to find the defendant abandoned his child when he claimed to have knowledge of cpss involvement he admitted that for periods of two years and six months he did not attempt any contact with his child and from the date he canceled a home study until the petition was filed he did not attempt to contact the child or cps or provide support even when he was out of jail holding that defendant could not complain of search and seizure of bags in which he disclaimed any ownership holding that the defendant could not appeal a jury instruction where he did not object to the challenged instruction but in fact requested it and stated he was satisfied with it holding that the defendant had abandoned any possessory or privacy interest in bags found in the truck he was driving where he stated that he did not own the bags did not know who did and did not know what was in them