State v. Hawthorne

“An exigent circumstance is “a situation that requires police to act swiftly to prevent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall a suspect’s escape or the destruction of evidence.” State v. Snow, 337 Or 219, 223, 94 P3d 872 (2004).

The Police identified Defendant as a suspect within hours of the murder at issue and without a search warrant, police asked Defendant’s cell phone service provider to “ping” Defendant’s phone location. Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for murder and moved to suppress evidence arguing that under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a warrant was required because he retained a privacy interest in his real-time CSLI. The Court agreed with the lower court and stated “an exigent circumstance is “a situation that requires police to act swiftly to prevent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall a suspect’s escape or the destruction of evidence.” State  v.  Snow,  337  Or  219,  223,  94 P3d 872 (2004). According to defendant, there was no threat of imminent physical harm because (1) police found pieces of a gun at the scene, which suggested that defendant’s firearms were no longer functioning; (2) the intervening time; and (3) the fact that any other potential target was protected from imminent physical harm. The Court rejected those arguments based on threatening text messages defendant sent after he fatally shot one of the potential target’s family members. Thus, the Court concluded that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence resulting from the ping of Defendant’s phone. Affirmed.