State v. Fuller
252 Or. App. 245
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- DUII case; urine test obtained without a warrant; results implicate defendant in ingestion of controlled substances.
- Trial court suppressed urine evidence under Machuca I and Machuca II analyses; state appeals under ORS 138.060(1)(c).
- Facts: 10/28/2009; hit-and-run at grocery; odor of alcohol, slowed movements, slurred words; defendant admits two beers and an Oxycodone dose.
- Probable cause for DUII arrest; field sobriety tests show impairment; breath test at 8:00 p.m. yields 0.0% BAC.
- DRE concludes impairment; urine sample consented to; sample tests positive for Oxycodone.
- Question on appeal: whether warrantless urine seizure was justified by exigent circumstances after Machuca II; trial court relied on Machuca I/II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless urine seizure. | State: transformation evidence creates exigency per McMullen. | Machuca II requires no exigency; no rapid disappearance of evidence. | Exigency exists; warrantless seizure approved. |
| Whether implied-consent warning coerced defendant’s urine consent (coercion of consent). | State contends Machuca I coercion finding stands. | Machuca I coercion invalidates consent; invalid search. | Resolved by prior rule; court declines to reconsider coercion and affirms ruling on coercion grounds. |
| Whether an inevitable discovery theory could sustain the result. | State might argue alternative lawful means would have yielded the urine. | Inevitable discovery could support affirmance; argued below but not preserved. | Argument not preserved; not considered; refused as basis for affirmance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Machuca, 231 Or App 232 (2009) (coercive consent analysis; later reversed on other grounds)
- Machuca II, 347 Or 654 (2010) (limits on exigency; permits evanescent BAC to justify warrantless seizure)
- State v. McMullen, 250 Or App 208 (2012) (transformation in urine can create exigency for urine seizure)
- Outdoor Med. Dimns., Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634 (2001) (right-for-the-wrong-reason doctrine for alternative grounds)
- State v. Moore, 247 Or App 39 (2011) (coercive effect of implied-consent warning addressed)