State v. McMullen
250 Or. App. 208
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- State appeals pretrial order suppressing a urine test obtained without a warrant showing multiple controlled substances.
- State argues consent, exigent circumstances, or arrest-related authority make the test admissible.
- Facts: stopped for a traffic violation, arrested for DUII after probable cause, urine sample obtained ~2:00 a.m. following breath test, consent given during private call, toxicology revealed several drugs.
- Machuca I held consent was involuntary and rejected exigent-circumstances justification; Machuca II partially reversed, focusing on exigency.
- Court applies Machuca II to determine exigent circumstances exist; reverses trial court and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was consent to the urine test voluntary? | State: consent was voluntary; coercion not present. | Machuca I coercive consent based on warned consequences. | Consent not voluntary under prior ruling; coerced |
| Do exigent circumstances justify warrantless urine testing? | State: exigency exists due to evanescent drug presence. | Defendant: no exigency since warrant could be obtained timely. | Yes; exigency exists under Machuca II |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Machuca, 231 Or App 232 (Or. App. 2009) (consent involuntary; exigency analysis began)
- Machuca II, 347 Or 644 (Or. 2010) (redefines exigent circumstances for urine/blood draws)
- State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132 (Or. App. 2002) (procedural framework for applying Machuca II)
- State v. Moore, 247 Or App 39 (Or. App. 2011) (reaffirms rejection of voluntary-consent arguments)