State v. Moore
247 Or. App. 39
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Moore was involved in a fatal two-vehicle crash on Highway 101 in Tillamook County on Sep 12, 2008; he was injured and hospitalized.
- A state trooper observed Moore, questioned him after pain meds, and determined probable cause for DUI based on investigative findings.
- Moore was read Miranda rights, questioned, and then asked to provide blood and urine samples; Moore consented to testing.
- Prior to trial, Moore moved to suppress all evidence from the seizure of his person and testing results; the suppression hearing followed Machuca I’s reasoning.
- The trial court suppressed the evidence, holding consent involuntary under Machuca I and that no exigent circumstances justified warrantless testing.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, adopting Machuca I’s reasoning that implied-consent warnings rendered consent involuntary; the Supreme Court later revised Machuca II but did not disturb the consent analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent obtained after implied-consent warnings is involuntary. | Moore | Moore | Yes; consent involuntary under Machuca I analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Machuca I, 231 Or.App. 232 (2009) (consent obtained after implied-consent warnings involuntary)
- Machuca II, 347 Or. 644 (2010) (Supreme Court reversed on other grounds; consent analysis preserved)
- Farmers Ins. Co. v. Mowry, 350 Or. 686 (2011) (stare decisis prudence; stability and predictability in precedent)