State v. Thompson

The exigency exception to warrantless seizures requires that the police have probable cause and that an exigent circumstance, one that requires prompt action, exists. State v. McCarthy, 369 Or. 129, 142 (2021). Police cannot extend the exigent circumstance by not promptly seeking a warrant. State v. Fondren, 285 Or 361, 366-67 (1979).

Defendant appealed a conviction of robbery. Defendant assigned error to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argued the police had unlawfully seized Defendant’s phone when they failed to get a warrant for five days after seizing the phone. Further, evidence from the phone in and Defendant’s statements in response to the evidence should have been suppressed. State argued that the seizure and delay in obtaining a warrant fell within the exigency exception. The exigency exception to warrantless seizures requires that the police have probable cause and that an exigent circumstance, one that requires prompt action, exists. State  v.  McCarthy, 369 Or. 129, 142 (2021). Police cannot extend the exigent circumstance by not promptly seeking a warrant. State v. Fondren, 285 Or 361, 366-67 (1979). The Court answered four (4) questions related to the denial of the motion to supress. Answering the first three (3) questions the Court reasoned that holding a phone for five days without obtaining a warrant did not fall under the exigency exception because it was police inaction resulting in an unnecessary delay and found that the motion to suppress should have been granted. However, answering the final question the Court held that the evidence was harmless to the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the trial court's denial of the motion to supress was affirmed.