State v. Mazzola
345 P.3d 424
Or.2015Background
- Officer Lohrfink stopped Mazzola for a lane-change signaling violation, observed signs of impairment (slurred speech, glassy/droopy eyelids, fumbling, sweating) and developed probable cause to arrest for DUII based on suspected controlled-substance intoxication.
- Officer, trained in FSTs and with paramedic/pharmacology background (not a DRE), asked Mazzola to perform HGN and three additional field sobriety tests (walk-and-turn, one-leg stand, finger-to-nose); she consented to HGN and testified she complied with the others because he told her to.
- After the FSTs, Officer arrested Mazzola for DUII (controlled substance). Mazzola moved to suppress the results of the three non-HGN FSTs, arguing lack of consent and lack of exigent circumstances to permit a warrantless search under Article I, §9.
- The trial court found no actual consent to the three additional FSTs but found probable cause and exigent circumstances, denied suppression; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- On review, the Supreme Court addressed whether exigent circumstances—given (1) probable cause to arrest for controlled-substance DUII and (2) the evanescent nature of impairment evidence—permitted warrantless roadside FSTs under the Oregon Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Mazzola) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justify warrantless roadside FSTs when officer has probable cause to arrest for controlled-substance DUII | Exigency ordinarily exists because observable evidence of impairment is most probative when gathered close in time to driving; drug effects dissipate and warrant delays risk loss of evidence | No per se exigency: dissipation rates for controlled substances vary unpredictably, not common knowledge; without drug-specific dissipation evidence, exigency cannot be presumed | Held: Exigency existed—given probable cause, limited scope of tests, and evanescent nature of observable impairment, warrantless FSTs were reasonable under Article I, §9 |
| Whether FSTs required a warrant because dissipation rates for controlled substances are scientifically uncertain | Warrants not required routinely because observable impairment evidence is time-sensitive and often nonchemical; obtaining a warrant risks losing probative evidence | Because controlled-substance metabolism varies and metabolites can persist after impairment, the state would have to show a warrant could not be obtained without sacrificing evidence | Held: Court rejects requiring case-by-case proof that a warrant could not be obtained; relies on reasonableness (scope/time/intensity) and proximity to driving to find exigency ordinary in such cases |
| Whether consent or implied-consent statutes validated the tests (alternative state arguments) | State argued implied consent under ORS 813.135 might apply | Mazzola denied actual consent to the three tests; argued suppression required if no consent and no exigency | Court did not decide implied-consent issue; found suppression denial proper on exigency grounds |
| Whether precedents about alcohol (warrantless blood draws/FSTs) control controlled-substance FSTs | State: Nagel and Machuca principles apply—evanescent evidence supports exigency | Mazzola: Controlled substances differ materially from alcohol; precedents about alcohol dissipation are inapposite | Held: Alcohol cases are instructive but not dispositive; applying the exigency framework to controlled-substance FSTs is appropriate given proximity, limited intrusion, and the need for timely observational evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nagel, 320 Or 24 (Oregon Supreme Court) (warrantless FSTs reasonable under exigent circumstances in alcohol-based DUII)
- State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644 (Oregon Supreme Court) (evanescent nature of blood alcohol ordinarily creates exigency for warrantless blood draws)
- State v. Moylett, 313 Or 540 (Oregon Supreme Court) (earlier approach requiring proof a warrant could not be obtained without sacrificing evidence)
- State v. Milligan, 304 Or 659 (Oregon Supreme Court) (warrantless blood draw reasonable where alcohol evidence dissipating and person is vessel of evidence)
- State v. Heintz, 286 Or 239 (Oregon Supreme Court) (search incident to arrest can justify limited warrantless intrusions when supported by probable cause)
- State v. Eumana-Moranchel, 352 Or 1 (Oregon Supreme Court) (statutory elements of DUII and distinction between chemical BAC proof and observable impairment)