State v. Garcia, 370 P.3d 512

Background

Officers responded to a neighbor’s 9‑1‑1 report of “mostly male screaming” and “possible hitting” at defendant’s home; they arrived within minutes.
Officers found the front door open, saw defendant on the living room couch, smelled alcohol, and defendant refused orders to step outside or allow entry; he lied that no one else was home and was arrested for interfering.
After arrest, Officer Corning entered the home to check on the alleged victim (G) and found her inside, crying and “frazzled,” but without obvious serious or recent physical injuries; she initially refused medical assistance.
Officers then questioned G inside the home; during continued questioning she disclosed multiple domestic‑violence incidents and officers observed old bruises on her arms.
Defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the warrantless entry; trial court denied the motion (finding entry justified by emergency aid, then relying on inevitable discovery), and defendant appealed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless entry was justified by the emergency‑aid exception under Article I, §9	Officers had an objectively reasonable belief someone inside needed immediate aid given the 9‑1‑1 report, defendant’s intoxication/uncooperativeness, and defendant’s lying about occupants	Entry was not objectively reasonable — sounds could reflect only verbal dispute; officers should not have entered	Entry was justified: objectively reasonable belief that G might be unconscious or injured, so emergency aid exception applied (entry lawful)
Whether the emergency dissipated once officer encountered G, and whether evidence gathered thereafter must be suppressed	Evidence (old bruises, statements) observed before dissipation supported continued investigation and probable cause; alternatively invoke material‑witness rule	Once officer observed only crying and no serious injuries and G refused aid, emergency dissipated and further presence/search required warrant	Emergency dissipated when officer saw G had no serious injury and refused aid; observations/statements after that point must be suppressed unless another exception applies
Whether the material‑witness exception (State v. Fair) justified remaining in the home and questioning G after dissipation	Fair exception permits on‑scene detention of likely material witnesses where reasonable suspicion of forcible injury and witness knowledge exist; thus officers could remain/question G	Fair does not apply here: facts insufficient to show recent forcible injury or that G had material knowledge; Fair authorizes detention, not warrantless intrusion into a home over occupant’s objection	Fair does not apply on these facts — record insufficient to justify applying Fair as alternative ground for affirmance
Whether attenuation/consent or inevitable discovery cures any illegality (alternative defenses raised on appeal)	Argued attenuation/consent on appeal; inevitable discovery argued at trial	Suppression required due to illegal post‑dissipation evidence; attenuation/consent not argued below	Court declines to consider attenuation/consent raised for first time on appeal; state conceded inevitable discovery does not apply; suppression required for evidence obtained after dissipation

Key Cases Cited

State v. Baker, 350 Or 641 (establishes emergency‑aid exception under Article I, §9)
State v. Fair, 353 Or 588 (material‑witness exception permitting brief on‑scene detention of likely material witnesses)
State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (attenuation and causal‑taint analysis)
State v. Unger, 356 Or 59 (fact‑specific review of whether police exploited illegality to obtain evidence)
State v. Mazzola, 238 Or App 201 (warrantless entry not justified where facts indicate only verbal dispute)
State v. Agnes, 118 Or App 675 (warrantless entry justified where banging/screaming and disarray suggested physical struggle)