State v. McCarthy, 501 P.3d 478

Salem police stopped McCarthy for drifting into a bike lane; the truck was legally parked in a public lot after the stop near the county courthouse.
During the stop officers learned of prior drug-related probable cause, observed heroin-consistent stains and nervous behavior, summoned a K-9, and McCarthy was arrested after the dog alerted.
The truck was unoccupied and the registered owner was detained on a warrant; officers did not attempt a written or telephonic warrant but searched the truck relying on Oregon’s automobile exception and recovered heroin and paraphernalia.
McCarthy moved to suppress; the trial court granted suppression because the state failed to prove exigent circumstances at the time of the search and that a warrant was impracticable.
The Court of Appeals reversed, applying State v. Brown to treat vehicle mobility at the stop as a per se exigency; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown’s per se automobile-exigency rule should remain	Retain Brown: mobility at stop + probable cause suffices for warrantless vehicle searches	Overrule Brown: exigency must be actual at the time of seizure/search	Brown’s per se exigency rule overruled; exigency must be shown case-by-case
Whether the warrantless search of McCarthy’s truck was lawful	Truck was mobile when stopped and officers had probable cause, so search valid under Brown	Truck was immobile/unoccupied when probable cause arose; no actual exigency; warrant required	Search unlawful; state failed to prove an actual exigency and suppression affirmed
Whether officers had to attempt telephonic/electronic warrant or reasonable steps to get a warrant	Obtaining a warrant would have taken hours; officers lacked training and practice with telephonic warrants	Technology, statute, and practices make telephonic/e-warrants feasible; officers cannot create exigency by inaction	State must prove it could not obtain a warrant by reasonable steps (including electronic/telephonic methods); officers’ inaction cannot create exigency

State v. Brown, 301 Or 268 (Ore. 1986) (announced Oregon’s automobile exception as a per se exigency rule)
State v. Andersen, 361 Or 187 (Or. 2017) (recognized that technological changes may permit warrants to obviate the automobile exception in some cases)
State v. Bliss, 363 Or 426 (Or. 2019) (discussed Brown’s goal of bright-line guidance for stops and addressed scope issues)
State v. Kock, 302 Or 29 (Or. 1986) (held automobile exception does not apply to parked, immobile, unoccupied vehicles absent other exigencies)
State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173 (Or. 2006) (interpreted mobility in context and stressed continuity of exigency analysis)
State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 351 Or 179 (Or. 2011) (clarified encounter/mobility requirements for the automobile exception)
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925) (distinguished vehicles from structures and recognized exigency where vehicles can be quickly moved)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (addressed scope of vehicle searches when probable cause exists)
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2013) (rejected a per se exigency rule for blood draws and emphasized case-specific exigency analysis)