- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 12-14-2011
- Case #: A145081
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Haselton, P.J. for the Court; Armstrong, J.; & Duncan, J.
- Full Text Opinion
State Trooper Farrar witnessed and investigated a two vehicle accident involving defendant. Based on defendant’s dazed and slow speech after the accident and drowsy, slurred, and thick speech in the emergency room, Trooper Farrar asked defendant a series of standard “alcohol influence interview report” questions and asked him for a voluntary blood and urine sample. Defendant agreed to give samples, but later moved to suppress all evidence from the seizure of his person, blood, and urine. The state argued that defendant’s actions constituted voluntary consent, and urged the Court of Appeals to revisit its definition of voluntary consent as discussed in Machuca I. The Court declined the state’s request and deferred to Machuca I as stare decisis. Applying the involuntary consent factors of Machuca I, the Court held that defendant’s consent was involuntary because it was given shortly after being injured during an auto accident. Affirmed