State v. Miskell, 277 P.3d 522

Salem police investigated a burglary at Aaron's Furniture and Electronics; Maynard, in jail, provided information tying defendants to the burglary and the stolen items.
Police arranged a sting operation; Maynard helped facilitate a monitored transfer of a stolen laptop from Maynard to the defendants at a hotel.
Detective Bethers wired and recorded Maynard's hotel-room meeting with defendants; officers intercepted and recorded the ensuing conversation.
Defendants were arrested with stolen laptops after the hotel-room meeting; they were charged with aggravated theft in the first degree and burglary in the second degree.
Defendants moved to suppress the recording as obtained without a court order under ORS 133.726; the trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion.
The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether ORS 133.726(7)’s exigency exception justified interception without a court order and whether any error was prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does ORS 133.726(7)(b) exigency apply to intercepting a conversation with a police-involved informant without a court order?	Miskell/Sinibaldi	State	No; exigency requires traditional constitutional exigencies; the interception was unlawful.
Was the error in admitting the recording harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?	State	Miskell/Sinibaldi	No; the recording was not harmless and affected the verdicts; judgments reversed and remanded.

State v. Stevens, 311 Or. 119 (1991) (exigency concept in warrant exceptions)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation of ORS 133.726; legislative history applicability)
State v. Meharry, 342 Or. 173 (2006) (probable cause and exigent circumstances in warrantless searches)
United States v. Alaimalo, 313 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2002) (exigent circumstances framework in Fourth Amendment context)
State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (2003) (harmless error standard for appellate review of evidentiary error)