with equal force here. The officer did not violate defendants’ Article I, section 9, rights when he examined the garbage that the sanitation company had collected from defendants and turned over to him. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed. 1 Because the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit the police from searching a person’s garbage after the sanitation company has collected it, California v. Greenwood, 486 US 35, 108 S Ct 1625, 100 L Ed 2d 30 (1988), defendants have based their argument solely on Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. 2 A person may have a right to possess property that he or she does not own. See Wisbey v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 264 Or 600, 603, 507 P2d 17 (1973) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the trial court found that
holding that police officer could reasonably have impounded defendants vehicle either because there was no known individual immediately available to take custody of the car or because the car could have constituted a nuisance in the area in which it was parked recognizing that the plaintifflawfully could have possessed a car without owning it holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search holding that plaintiffs who were in the car during car accident could recover for emotional damages because they were within zone of danger