The Oregon Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals in State v. Machuca today. Late last year, the Court of Appeals held that breath and blood tests were inadmissible searches because the implied consent advisement is coercive and the State had not shown exigency.
Generally, a search requires a warrant. There are a few exceptions to this warrant requirement. The Supreme Court today focused on the exigency exception. Under the exigency exception, police do not need a warrant in cases where evidence is likely going to be lost. The Court held that because alcohol is metabolized, it is likely to be lost. Therefore, exigency exists in most cases. Although the Court did not go so far as to create a per se exigency exception, it did say that exigency will exist in all be rare cases.
Because the Court found exigency, it expressly declined to address whether or not the implied consent advisement is coercive. The Court noted that the implied consent advisement was operating in the manner intended by the legislature. This observation is neither here nor there in terms of the constitutionality consent however. Because the Supreme Court did not address the Court of Appeals holding regarding consent, that holding should still valid law.
Of course, the State must still lay the foundation for breath and blood tests. Tests must still adhere to testing protocols. This decision means that trial courts will be very unlikely to suppress tests based entirely on the lack of a warrant.
One area where this decision could have an interesting effect is in test refusal cases. The Supreme Court noted today that the legislature did not want to compel blood tests. Nevertheless, if there is truly exigency, police could obtain blood without a warrant or consent. If this is the case, then in refusal cases, the lack of blood could be a significant point. As is often the case, more litigation will be required to fully sort at the implications of this decision.
