State v. Baker
260 P.3d 476
Or.2011Background
- Defendant Baker was charged with multiple marijuana offenses in Jackson County.
- Police entered Baker’s residence without a warrant after responding to a 9-1-1 domestic disturbance call.
- Anonymous caller reported yelling, possible child inside, and Turnage used a code word signaling police assistance.
- Officers observed through a side window that Baker and Turnage were arguing and that Baker began removing marijuana buds.
- Officers entered through the back door and subsequently seized marijuana plants during the investigation.
- Baker moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court denied; Court of Appeals reversed, prompting state review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether emergency aid justifies warrantless entry beyond the front of the house | State argues emergency aid extends to entry to render aid | Baker argues emergency aid not satisfied; no true emergency | Yes; emergency aid justified entry beyond front boundary based on articulable facts and threat of serious harm |
| Whether curtilage concerns negate the entry | State contends observations within safe scope support emergency aid | Baker contends trespass into curtilage was unlawful | No; curtilage intrusion permissible under emergency aid when facts support emergency need |
| Whether the four-part Follett test governs this case under Oregon law | State urges broader emergency aid standard beyond Follett | Baker adhered to emergency aid standard as applied | Court adopts emergency aid standard with objective reasonable belief; applies here |
| Whether observed evidence after side-window view is admissible | State relies on emergency aid to justify further search | Baker argues evidence beyond initial approach cannot be admitted | Admissible; emergency aid justified subsequent observations and searches |
| Whether Davis/Bridewell lineage controls analysis here | State relies on emergency aid lineage | Baker argues limited use of emergency aid per Davis, Bridewell | Emergency aid exception recognized; facts meet elements; evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 295 Or. 227 (1983) (emergency aid acknowledged as exception to warrant requirement but dissipates when emergency ends)
- State v. Bridewell, 306 Or. 231 (1988) (emergency aid doctrine distinct; requires true emergency and dissipating threat)
- State v. Follett, 115 Or.App. 672 (1992) (four-part test for emergency aid doctrine)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (emergency aid is permissible if necessary to aid or prevent harm; objective standard later adopted by Brigham City)
- Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (objective reasonableness standard for emergency aid)