263 P.3d 1091
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- DUII prosecution; motion to suppress breath-test results under ORS 138.060(1)(c) denied in part, granted in part, based on Machuca I reasoning.
- Supreme Court later reversed Machuca I in Machuca II, changing the test for exigent circumstances and warrantless breath tests.
- Facts: stop at 11:00 p.m. on April 21, 2009; officer waited for tow truck; transport to jail about an hour after stop; 12:14 a.m. observation period begins; 12:31 a.m. breath test administered with BAC above legal limit.
- Trial court found more than an hour unaccounted for and questioned whether a warrant could have been obtained; relied on Machuca I framework.
- Machuca II held that a warrant could be unnecessary when probable cause and evanescent BAC exist; suggested rare cases where a warrant could have been obtained and executed significantly faster.
- Appellate court remanded to reconsider suppression in light of Machuca II; noting the trial court’s findings may differ under the newer standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this is a rare case under Machuca II warranting suppression | State: not a rare case; exigent circumstances and probable cause justify seizure. | Martinez-Alvarez: may be a rare case where a warrant could have been obtained faster and would have avoided suppression. | Remand for reconsideration in light of Machuca II |
| Whether Machuca II governs suppression of breath-test evidence in this context | State: Machuca II supports warrantless seizure based on probable cause and exigency. | Martinez-Alvarez: the record shows no time to obtain a warrant without losing BAC evidence. | Remand for reconsideration consistent with Machuca II |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Machuca, 347 Or. 644 (2010) (Clarifies that the evanescent nature of BAC creates exigency; rare cases where warrant could have been obtained faster may apply)
- State v. Machuca, 231 Or. App. 232 (2009) (Machuca I: required proving warrant could not be obtained without sacrificing evidence)
- State v. Kruse, 220 Or. App. 38 (2008) (discusses potential timing for telephonic warrants in DUI investigations)
- State v. Roberts, 75 Or. App. 292 (1985) (exigency reasoning for warrantless seizure in BAC context)
- State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (1993) (establishes standard for reviewing trial court findings of historical facts)