State v. McCullough, 264 Or. App. 496

Defendant was charged with DUII after a trooper entered defendant’s trailer without a warrant.
State argued the entry was justified by the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement.
Trial court suppressed the evidence, concluding there was no true emergency.
Appellate court reviewed that Neville had no evidence of subjective belief that immediate aid was needed.
The court ultimately affirmed suppression, focusing on Neville’s lack of belief that entry was necessary to render aid for serious injury.
The Baker decision later clarified the emergency aid standard, impacting how the subjective belief requirement is evaluated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the entry justified by the emergency aid exception under Oregon law?	State argues Neville reasonably believed immediate aid was needed.	Defendant contends there was no true emergency and no immediate need.	No; emergency aid not established.
Did Baker replace Follett’s rigid “true emergency” requirement with a permissible objective standard?	State relies on Baker’s objective reasonable belief of imminent harm.	Defendant argues no objective basis in the record for such belief.	Court adopts Baker's framework that requires subjective belief of immediate need, supported by objective reasonableness.
Was the suppression of all evidence obtained after entry proper?	State seeks admission of evidence obtained after entry.	Evidence tainted by unconstitutional entry must be suppressed.	Yes, suppression affirmed.

State v. Baker, 350 Or 641 (2011) (emergency aid requires objectively reasonable belief of need to aid or protect from serious harm)
State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (2005) (evidence obtained after unconstitutional police action is inadmissible without mitigating circumstances)
State v. Pierce, 203 P.3d 343 (2009) (emergency aid requires subjective belief of immediate need, with objective reasonableness)