State v. Briggs, 307 P.3d 564

At ~12:06 a.m., Deschutes County deputy Brown responded to an anonymous call reporting an intoxicated man driving erratically; the caller gave a detailed physical and vehicle description.
Brown located a parked car matching the description; license check showed the registered owner had a suspended license from a prior DUII.
Brown saw defendant walking from a nearby condominium, illuminated him with a flashlight, and asked to talk; defendant ran back into the condo and closed the door.
Officers knocked; a woman who rented the room answered, told them it was her party, stepped aside and motioned to the back of the room where defendant was located.
Brown entered without a warrant, conducted sobriety testing, arrested defendant for DUII and driving while suspended; defendant later consented to a breath test showing 0.10% BAC.
Defendant moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless entry; the trial court denied the motion, and defendant appealed after a conditional guilty plea.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the renter consented to Brown’s warrantless entry into the condo	Renter voluntarily consented by stepping aside and motioning to defendant	Entry was not consensual; renter’s acquiescence was passive and insufficient	Consent was voluntary; entry lawful under consent exception
Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry (alternative)	Entry would be justified by exigent circumstances and probable cause	No exigency shown to excuse lack of warrant	Court resolved case on consent; did not rely on exigent-circumstances analysis
Whether the officer’s words coerced consent (request vs. command)	Officer’s statement left the renter a choice; not an inevitable-entry command	Officer’s language communicated inevitability, producing mere acquiescence	Court found the officer’s words did not eliminate a reasonable choice; consent was voluntary
Burden of proof for warrantless-entry exception	State must prove exception by preponderance	Defendant asserts state failed to meet burden	Court concluded state met its burden to show voluntary consent

State v. Marshall, 254 Or. App. 419 (discusses standard for consent and review of suppression rulings)
State v. Dahl, 323 Or. 199 (probable cause + exigent circumstances can justify warrantless entry)
State v. Dunlap, 215 Or. App. 46 (warrantless searches and Article I, section 9)
State v. Weaver, 319 Or. 212 (consent-search framework: authority and voluntariness)
State v. Freund, 102 Or. App. 647 (distinguishing consent from acquiescence)
State v. Martin, 222 Or. App. 138 (consent may be manifested by conduct)
State v. Jepson, 254 Or. App. 290 (officer statements that remove choice produce acquiescence, not consent)
State v. Ry/Guinto, 211 Or. App. 298 (linguistic difference between "I'd like to come in" and "I'm coming in")