State v. Shirk, 248 Or. App. 278

In Feb 2008, deputies went to a Wood Village motel for an outstanding warrant on Martinez and found defendant in the room with a baby;Read knew of a prior meth-related death involving defendant and her child.
Defendants initially blocked access to the motel room;she was restrained and handcuffed during the encounter.
Cortada engaged defendant with “small talk” and obtained her consent to search after Mallory returned from speaking with the sergeant.
The consent form stated defendant’s rights and she signed allowing a search of Room 212;no drugs were found in the room.
The trial court suppressed defendant’s custodial statements but allowed the room evidence, relying on the emergency aid doctrine to justify the entry/search.
On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that the consent was tainted by unlawful seizure and interrogation, the emergency aid doctrine did not apply, and the evidence should have been suppressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the search consent tainted by unlawful detention and interrogation?	State argues no nexus or attenuation between illegal conduct and consent.	Shirk contends consent derived from unlawful seizure/interrogation.	Yes; consent tainted; suppression required.
Does the emergency aid doctrine justify the room search?	State asserts emergency aid based on potential risk to the baby.	Emergency aid not present; no imminent threat.	No; emergency aid doctrine inapplicable.

State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7 (2005) (attenuation standard for taint from prior illegality)
State v. Ayles, 348 Or. 622 (2010) (totality of circumstances test for attenuation; Miranda can break causal chain)
State v. Davis, 295 Or. 227 (1983) (validity of warrantless searches by established exceptions; consent)
State v. Owens, 302 Or. 196 (1986) (subjective belief requirement for probable cause; not necessary to be correct)
State v. Thompkin, 341 Or. 368 (2006) (Miranda warnings as potential attenuating factor)
State v. Baker, 350 Or. 641 (2011) (emergency aid doctrine—true emergency requires imminent risk)