399 P.3d 1049
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- DUII conviction; defendant moved to suppress based on warrantless home entry; challenge rooted in exigent circumstances and timing for a warrant.
- Officer observed signs of intoxication at defendant's door; concern about dissipation/destruction of evidence if she re-entered her home.
- Entry occurred after defendant opened the door; officer prevented leaving, read Miranda, and another officer took over the DUII investigation.
- Officers testified that obtaining a warrant would typically take four to five hours; telephonic warrants were not used in Washington County.
- Trial court denied suppression; defendant convicted in a stipulated facts trial; on appeal, challenge focused on credibility of warrant-time evidence and applicability of McNeely.
- Court declined to require telephonic warrant procedures and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress on exigency grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless home entry | Hicks testified to a 4–5 hour warrant timeline and dissipation risk | No credible time-to-warrant evidence; McNeely casting doubt on per se exigency | Exigent circumstances proven; warrantless entry upheld |
| Whether the state needed telephonic-warrant proof given Washington County procedures | Evidence of 4–5 hours suffices; telephonic warrants not required | Must show time to obtain any warrant, including telephonic | No telephonic-warrant proof required; non-speculative time evidence adequate |
| Whether McNeely precluded warrantless home entry in DUII context | McNeely allows exigency considering totality of circumstances | McNeely dictates per se no-warrant approach would be problematic | McNeely factors considered; ongoing procedures may affect exigency; no per se rule |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sullivan, 265 Or App 62 (Or App 2014) (requires showing how long to obtain a warrant to assess exigency)
- State v. Roberts, 75 Or App 292 (Or App 1985) (exigency to preserve body-evidence in DUII cases)
- State v. Ritz, 270 Or App 88 (Or App 2015) (nonspeculative time evidence can establish exigency)
- State v. Rice, 270 Or App 50 (Or App 2015) (speculation about warrant-review timing fails to prove exigency)
- State v. Kruse, 220 Or App 38 (Or App 2008) (insufficient evidence of warrant-access time fails exigency proof)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 134 (2013) (totality of circumstances governs exigency; not a per se rule)