Oregon Appellate Court September 12, 2012
by: Erick Tobias • September 12, 2012 • no comments
DUII > Exigency > Probable Cause of Controlled Substance Justifies Warrantless Seizure of Urine
Defendant was arrested for DUII. Following DRE, defendant's urine tested positive for Oxycodone. The court holds that the results were lawfully obtained under the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement because once police have probable cause to believe evidence of a controlled substance will be in a suspect's urine, an exigency exists. State v. Fuller, __ Or App __ (2012).
Reasonable Suspicion > Recent Drug Use Does Not Support Belief of Present Possession
Previous drug use does not provide reasonable suspicion of present drug possession.
During traffic stop, Defendant displayed signs of meth use, though not enough to warrant a DUII investigation. Based on those signs, the officer suspected defendant had more drugs. He obtained consent to search her purse and found meth. The court holds that signs of recent meth use like nervousness and grinding teeth do not support reasonable suspicion of present meth possession. State v. Farrar, __ Or App __ (2012).
Emergency-aid exception > Evidence of Suicidal Behavior not Evidence of Assault or Homicide
Officer's opening of defendant's front door was not justified by the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement where defendant did not immediately answer the door after police subdued his suicidal roommate. Evidence of suicidal behavior does not lead directly to a reasonable belief of assaultive or homicidal behavior. Consent to search was not attenuated from the illegal entry just because the officer's feet did not enter the apartment. State v. Lorenzo, __ Or App __ (2012).
Per Curiam -- Where a petition for a stalking protective order relies on speech based contacts, the petitioner must establish that the contacts"instill[ ] in the addressee a fear of imminent and serious personal violence from the speaker, [are] unequivocal, and [are] objectively likely to be followed by unlawful acts." E.O. v Cowger
