State v. Ritz

When it comes to exigent circumstances, “the mere possibility that defendant could make a break if he were so inclined” does not give rise to exigency “when there is no indication that he is, in fact, so inclined.” State v. Peller, 287 Or 255 (1979).

Defendant appealed his convictions of driving under the influence of intoxicants and driving while suspended. Defendant assigned error to the denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued that there were no exigent circumstances that allowed a warrantless entry; therefore his rights under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution and Fourth Amendment were violated. In response, the State argued that, because the officer was in “hot pursuit” and looked like he was going to “make a break” for it, exigent circumstances were present. When it comes to exigent circumstances, “the mere possibility that defendant could make a break if he were so inclined” does not give rise to exigency “when there is no indication that he is, in fact, so inclined.” State v. Peller, 287 Or 255 (1979). The Court of Appeals held that the evidence of Defendant making a break that justified exigent circumstances were not present because the officers never saw Defendant try to flee or said anything suggesting that nor could they confirm that he tried to hide in the bushes. Reversed and remanded.