State v. Perrott

In cases involving alleged DUI offenses, Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution does not relieve the state’s burden of proof for an exigency exception to the warrant requirement, when the only evidentiary support is an officer’s concern about the risk of dissipation in a defendant's blood-alcohol level prior to the officer obtaining a warrant.  State v. Ritz, 361 Or 781, 798 (2017). 

State appealed the trial court's order to suppress evidence under ORS 138.060(1)(c). State assigned error to the trial court’s ruling that it had failed to meet the burden of proof of an exigent circumstance justifying the officer's warrantless entry.  On appeal, State argued that the officer's warrantless entry was justified due to the risk of alcohol dissipation in Defendant’s blood, and this satisfied the requirements for the "exigent circumstances exception" to Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. In cases involving alleged DUI offenses, Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution does not relieve the state’s burden of proof for an exigency exception to the warrant requirement, when the only evidentiary support is an officer’s concern about the risk of dissipation in a defendant's blood-alcohol level prior to the officer obtaining a warrant. State v. Ritz, 361 Or 781, 798 (2017). The Court of Appeals held that State failed to satisfy the burden of proof for the exigent circumstance exception, and therefore the trial court did not err in granting Defendant's motion. Affirmed.