State v. Mazzola, 260 Or. App. 378

Defendant was convicted of DUII under ORS 813.010 in a criminal case.
Defendant moved to suppress evidence from warrantless field sobriety tests (FSTs) administered after a roadside stop.
Officer observed signs of intoxication during the stop and concluded probable cause to believe impairment, suspecting possible controlled-substance involvement.
Officer administered HGN test then three additional FSTs without obtaining a warrant; defendant did not consent to the tests.
Trial court denied the suppression; on appeal, defendant argues no consent and no exigent circumstances; the State argues exigency existed due to dissipation of intoxication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless FSTs are justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances under Article I, section 9.	Nagel-based exigency; dissipation of intoxication was imminent, creating urgency.	No valid exigent circumstances; no warrant obtained; tests violate Article I, section 9.	Exigent circumstances plus probable cause justify.

State v. Nagel, 320 Or 24 (Oregon Supreme Court 1994) (exigent circumstances for warrantless FSTs when intoxication may dissipate)
State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644 (Oregon Supreme Court 2010) (evanescent nature of intoxication supports warrantless testing; occasional exception for rapid warranting)
State v. McMullen, 250 Or App 208 (Oregon Court of Appeals 2012) (exigency for urine tests when substances may dissipate in urine)
State v. Fuller, 252 Or App 245 (Oregon Court of Appeals 2012) (urine-test exigency framework for controlled substances)
State v. Milligan, 304 Or 659 (Oregon Supreme Court 1988) (general rule on exigency and dissipation in warrantless searches)