242 P.3d 674
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- In May 2004, deputies investigated a 9-1-1 domestic disturbance at Maz zola's property, where two children were present.
- Wife Allisa Maz zola met officers outside the log cabin; she said the argument was verbal and no injuries occurred.
- Officers went to the nearby mobile home, observed wilted marijuana plants on the porch and the odor of marijuana, and entered the mobile home without a warrant or consent.
- Inside, officers found an extensive marijuana grow operation; Maz zola admitted he was a cardholder and grew marijuana for another woman; he allowed further inspection of the residence.
- After determining the growing operation exceeded legal limits, a narcotics detective obtained Miranda warnings and obtained Maz zola's consent to search the remainder of the home, including a signed written consent.
- Defendants moved to suppress the marijuana evidence, arguing the initial entry was unlawful and the consent was involuntary or tainted; the trial court denied suppression, ruling the entry was justified and that consent was valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial warrantless entry was lawful under emergency aid. | State contends emergency aid justified entry. | Mazzola argues no true emergency; entry was unlawful. | Emergency aid did not justify the entry; unlawful. |
| Whether the subsequent consent was sufficiently attenuated to validate the search. | State argues Miranda and attenuated connection validate search. | Mazzola contends attenuation does not cure unlawful entry and tainted consent. | Attenuation not established; most evidence obtained before consent; suppression required for pre-consent evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Salisbury, 223 Or.App. 516 (2008) (emergency aid requires objective evidence of an emergency; no such here)
- State v. Burdick, 209 Or.App. 575 (2006) (objective indicia of emergency needed for true emergency)
- State v. Agnes, 118 Or.App. 675 (1993) (emergency aid justified where behavior and surroundings supported distress)
- State v. Martin, 222 Or.App. 138 (2008) (community caretaking and emergency considerations limited by constitutional norms)
- State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7 (2005) (attenuation doctrine; later consent may cure but not when primary evidence obtained unlawfully)
- State v. Ayles, 348 Or. 622 (2010) (attenuation and related suppression principles in search cases)