Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SHAWN STEVEN BROSSART, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2011-09-08
Citations: 245 Or. App. 498
Docket Number: 091153361; A145360
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SHAWN STEVEN BROSSART, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 245
Pages: 498–499

Head Matter:
Submitted August 5,
reversed and remanded September 8, 2011
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SHAWN STEVEN BROSSART, Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
091153361; A145360
261 P3d 98
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Lindsey K. Detweiler, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from convictions for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, and reckless driving, ORS 811.140. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a police officer, without a warrant, ordered defendant to come out of his house and threatened to arrest defendant if he did not comply. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the officer was not required to obtain a warrant because the officer had probable cause to seize defendant and exigent circumstances existed. Defendant contends that the warrant-less seizure was not supported by "probable cause plus exigent circumstances." (Boldface omitted.) The state agrees that "no exception to the warrant requirement applied" and, therefore, the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress. We agree and accept the state's concession.
Reversed and remanded.