- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 06-14-2017
- Case #: A157516
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Shorr, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed DUII conviction (ORS 813.010). She assigned error to the denial of her motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of her home based on exigent circumstances. On appeal, Defendant argued that during a warrantless entry into a home, the State must present evidence of attempts to get a warrant, including telephonic requests, and how those attempts either failed or were not possible within a reasonable time. The State argued there is no authority that requires evidence of how quickly a non-existent telephonic warrant procedure would be successful in order to prove exigent circumstances existed. Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the State must demonstrate its attempts to get a warrant and how those attempts either did not work or would not have worked within a reasonable time given the procedures available to the officers. State v. Sullivan, 265 Or App 62, 333 P3d 1201 (2014). The Court of Appeals held that the State met its burden to present credible evidence regarding the time it would take to obtain a warrant given that Washington County has not established procedures to obtain telephonic warrants. Affirmed.