Opinion ID: 2785740
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: We conclude that, because defendant was subject to arrest for DUII, and because the administration of the challenged FSTs was reasonable in time, scope, and intensity, the evidence of exigent circumstances in this case was sufficient to make the warrantless administration of those tests constitutionally permissible.15 Accordingly, we affirm 15 As noted, Officer Lohrfink testified that he relied on “implied consent” in this and other DUII cases. Our holding makes it unnecessary to consider the state’s alternative argument that defendant impliedly (as opposed to actually) consented to the administration of the FSTs under ORS 813.135. That statute provides: “Any person who operates a vehicle upon premises open to the public or the highways of the state shall be deemed to have given consent to submit to field sobriety tests upon the request of a police officer for the purpose of determining if the person is under the influence of intoxicants if the police officer reasonably suspects that the person has committed the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of ORS 813.010 or a municipal ordinance. Before the tests are administered, the person requested to take the tests shall be informed of the consequences of refusing to take or failing to submit to the tests under ORS 813.136.” Cite as 356 Or 804 (2015) 821 the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress and the Court of Appeals decision affirming that ruling.16 The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judg- ment of the circuit court are affirmed. ORS 813.136, in turn, provides: “If a person refuses or fails to submit to field sobriety tests as required by ORS 813.135, evidence of the person’s refusal or failure to submit is admissible in any criminal or civil action or proceeding arising out of allegations that the person was driving while under the influence of intoxicants.” ORS 813.135 and ORS 813.136, taken together, create a limited implied exclusionary rule that, “if the driver refuses the tests and no information concerning the consequences of refusing was given, evidence of refusal is not admissible.” State v. Trenary, 316 Or 172, 178, 850 P2d 356 (1993) (emphasis omitted). The record in this case does not show that Officer Lohrfink warned defendant of the consequences of refusing to submit to the FSTs. However, the statutes do not provide for the exclusion of evidence if a driver takes the field sobriety tests without being informed of the consequences because, in that instance, “the goal of the statute—that suspected DUII drivers perform field sobriety tests—has been achieved.” Id. Therefore, “[t]he statute is directed at drivers who refuse to take the test, not at drivers who do take the test.” Id. at 177. 16 Our holding also makes it unnecessary to address the state’s additional alternative argument that the warrantless administration of FSTs when an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a motorist has committed the crime of driving under the influence of intoxicants constitutes a reasonable search for purposes of Article I, section 9. In Nagel, this court expressly abstained from deciding whether ORS 813.135—which authorizes FSTs based on reasonable suspicion—violates Article I, section 9. Nagel, 320 Or at 37.