State v. Fredricks
238 Or. App. 349
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Officer responds to 9-1-1 report of possible domestic disturbance at motel; overhears loud argument outside defendant's room after knocking and before entry.
- Defendant opens door; officer enters after explaining concern and requesting entry to check occupants' safety; marijuana odor detected; companion J confined inside; consent to search later obtained from defendant.
- Defendant argues entry was not authorized by ORS 133.033 and violated Article I, §9; state argues entry was justified under community caretaking (emergency) and constitutional limits.
- Trial court denied suppression, ruling entry reasonable under ORS 133.033 and emergency aid; on appeal, the court addresses preservation and whether the emergency aid exception applied; ultimately reverses and suppresses evidence.
- Court holds that even if ORS 133.033 authorizes entry, the emergency aid doctrine requires objective evidence of an emergency; here only a loud argument with no imminent danger; thus suppression proper and case reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the entry was authorized by the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement. | State argues emergency aid satisfied due to potential danger. | Fredricks contends no true emergency existed. | Not authorized; emergency aid not shown. |
| Whether the issue was preserved under Article I, §9 despite focusing on ORS 133.033. | State argues constitutional issue wasn’t preserved. | Defendant contends preservation occurred. | Preserved; analysis proceeds under Article I, §9. |
| Whether ORS 133.033 alone suffices to authorize the warrantless entry. | State relies on statutory authorization. | Statute is not standalone exception; must meet emergency aid. | Even if applicable, emergency aid not satisfied; entry invalid. |
| Whether the evidence should be suppressed as fruit of an unlawful entry. | N/A (defense focused on illegality of entry). | Suppression appropriate if entry unlawful. | Evidence suppressed; reversed and remanded. |
| Whether the emergency aid doctrine requires objective indicia of danger beyond a loud disturbance. | N/A | N/A | Yes; absence of objective danger defeats emergency aid. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martin, 222 Or.App. 138, 193 P.3d 993 (2008) (emergency aid requires constitutional compliance after ORS 133.033 analysis)
- State v. Follett, 115 Or.App. 672, 840 P.2d 1298 (1992) (emergency aid requires true emergency and objective indicia)
- State v. Burdick, 209 Or.App. 575, 149 P.3d 190 (2006) (true emergency exists with identifiable victim or perpetrator)
- State v. Salisbury, 223 Or.App. 516, 196 P.3d 1017 (2008) (overhearing loud argument without other indicia is not emergency aid)
- State v. Snyder, 227 Or.App. 544, 206 P.3d 1083 (2009) (rejected reliance on statutory claim without constitutional basis)
- State v. Dahl, 323 Or. 199, 915 P.2d 979 (1996) (statutory authorization must align with constitutional constraints)