Oregon Supreme Ct - Aug 10, 2017
by: Sara Werboff • August 11, 2017 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> * * * </summary> [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064237.pdf State v. Sierra], 361 Or 723 (2017) (Walters, J.) [http://www.publications.ojd...") |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
| − | * | + | *Search and Seizure – Warrantless Entry in DUII Investigation was Not Justified by Exigent Circumstances |
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| + | '''Search and Seizure – Warrantless Entry in DUII Investigation was Not Justified by Exigent Circumstances''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The court reverses a Court of Appeals decision upholding the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. Approximately four hours after defendant was involved in an accident where it was alleged he was intoxicated, police located defendant inside his trailer. Police entered the trailer without a warrant and arrested defendant. Police did not believe that defendant would consent to a breath test, but defendant did so consent, and had a .14 BAC. At his DUII trial, defendant challenged the warrantless entry into his trailer. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The state petitioned for review, however, because it disagreed with the Court of Appeals reasoning in that the Court of Appeals would require the state to show how long it would take to obtain a warrant and that all evidence in defendant’s blood would be lost during that time. On review, the state contended that it need only show that any evidence would be lost. Defendant contended that the home entry was not justified by exigent circumstances in this case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The court on review does not decide the issue that the state pressed, because it concludes that the record does not establish an exigency. The court notes that, unlike a blood draw, a home entry does not directly preserve blood evidence. Here, police did not think that defendant would consent to a breath test, so there was no reason for the police to think that the delay in obtaining a warrant would delay a consensual breath test. Similarly, the court rejects the state’s argument that the warrantless entry would either preserve evidence of defendant’s refusal to take a breath test or observational evidence. Neither were the objects of the search in this case. The state therefore failed to establish that the officers reasonably believed they were faced with an exigency when they made a warrantless entry into defendant’s home. | ||
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S063292.pdf State v. Ritz], 361 Or 781 (2017) (Baldwin, S.J.) | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S063292.pdf State v. Ritz], 361 Or 781 (2017) (Baldwin, S.J.) | ||
Revision as of 15:51, August 12, 2017
State v. Sierra, 361 Or 723 (2017) (Walters, J.)
State v. Eastep, 361 Or 746 (2017) (Landau, J.)
Search and Seizure – Warrantless Entry in DUII Investigation was Not Justified by Exigent Circumstances
The court reverses a Court of Appeals decision upholding the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. Approximately four hours after defendant was involved in an accident where it was alleged he was intoxicated, police located defendant inside his trailer. Police entered the trailer without a warrant and arrested defendant. Police did not believe that defendant would consent to a breath test, but defendant did so consent, and had a .14 BAC. At his DUII trial, defendant challenged the warrantless entry into his trailer. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The state petitioned for review, however, because it disagreed with the Court of Appeals reasoning in that the Court of Appeals would require the state to show how long it would take to obtain a warrant and that all evidence in defendant’s blood would be lost during that time. On review, the state contended that it need only show that any evidence would be lost. Defendant contended that the home entry was not justified by exigent circumstances in this case.
The court on review does not decide the issue that the state pressed, because it concludes that the record does not establish an exigency. The court notes that, unlike a blood draw, a home entry does not directly preserve blood evidence. Here, police did not think that defendant would consent to a breath test, so there was no reason for the police to think that the delay in obtaining a warrant would delay a consensual breath test. Similarly, the court rejects the state’s argument that the warrantless entry would either preserve evidence of defendant’s refusal to take a breath test or observational evidence. Neither were the objects of the search in this case. The state therefore failed to establish that the officers reasonably believed they were faced with an exigency when they made a warrantless entry into defendant’s home.
State v. Ritz, 361 Or 781 (2017) (Baldwin, S.J.)
