State v. Ritz, 347 P.3d 1052

Late-night single-vehicle crash; witnesses identified Garrett (defendant) as driver and reported he appeared intoxicated. Police investigated and initially did not find Garrett at his trailer.
Officer Spini returned hours later and observed Garrett enter his locked trailer; officers formed a perimeter and entered the trailer without a warrant by having one officer climb through a window.
Garrett was found in the bathroom, exhibited strong signs of intoxication, was arrested at ~1:33 a.m., transported to jail, and a breath test at ~2:23 a.m. showed BAC 0.14.
Police testified obtaining a telephonic warrant would take at least 45–90 minutes; they entered without a warrant citing exigent circumstances (dissipation of BAC) and hot pursuit/officer safety.
Trial court denied Garrett’s suppression motion; Garrett appealed arguing the warrantless home entry violated Article I, §9 (Oregon) and the Fourth Amendment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the state proved exigent circumstances based on credible evidence of likely delay to obtain a warrant and an objectively reasonable belief that waiting would risk loss of BAC evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless entry into home was permissible under exigent-circumstances exception	State: dissipation of BAC creates exigency; officers credibly showed 45–90 minute warrant delay and objectively reasonable belief waiting would lose evidence	Garrett: Home-entry requires high protection; state failed to show waiting for a warrant would sacrifice BAC evidence	Held: Exigency proved — officers credibly showed time to obtain warrant and reasonable belief that delay could result in complete loss of BAC evidence; suppression denied

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes warrant requirement and limited exceptions)
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (BAC dissipates predictably; exigency depends on case-specific circumstances and availability of warrant)
State v. Machuca, 347 Or. 644 (2010) (evanescent BAC may permit warrantless blood draw in limited, hospital-draw context)
State v. Mazzola, 356 Or. 804 (search reasonableness evaluated by time, scope, intensity; blood draws characterized as limited intrusion)
State v. Sullivan, 265 Or. App. 62 (declines to extend Machuca’s near-per-se exigency rule to home entries)
State v. Roberts, 75 Or. App. 292 (state must credibly prove time to obtain warrant would sacrifice BAC evidence)
State v. Kruse, 220 Or. App. 38 (rejects exigency where officers gave only vague testimony about warrant delay)
State v. Rice, 270 Or. App. 50 (state failed to prove warrant unavailability; speculative judge availability insufficient)
State v. Baucum, 268 Or. App. 649 (defines retrograde extrapolation for BAC estimation)