State v. Portulano

The Fourth Amendment, as the Court articulated its requirements in Missouri v. McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013), requires the state to establish, under a totality of the circumstances approach, specific facts establishing exigency.

Defendant was in a single-vehicle accident and, after he refused a request for a blood draw, a trooper insisted one be performed on him anyway. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the warrantless blood draw. He argues that warrantlessly obtaining evidence was unconstitutional and that, in light of State v. McCarthy, 369 Or 129 (2021), a county cannot rely on the potential loss of evidence while police await a warrant to establish exigency unless the county has adopted policies to create an efficient electronic warrant process. The state argues that the analysis in State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644 (2010) is applicable to this case and thus the warrantless blood draw was permissible. The Fourth Amendment, as the Court articulated its requirements in Missouri v. McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013), requires the state to establish, under a totality of the circumstances approach, specific facts establishing exigency. Because the totality of the circumstances of this case did not support the existence of an exigency, the warrantless blood draw was a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Reversed and remanded.