Court Opinion

ID: 9546780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:35:16.118856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:51.052875
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion except for this statement:
“The Supreme Court, in dictum, also recognized the ‘emergency aid doctrine.’ 306 Or at 236. Under that exception, if police lack probable cause, but have, instead, a reasonable belief or suspicion of criminal activity, the police may enter to aid a crime victim actually in need of aid. That exception also requires that there be a ‘true emergency.’ 306 Or at 237.” 94 Or App at 377 (1988). (Footnotes omitted.)
Later in its opinion, the Supreme Court stated:
“We never have expressly held that emergencies solely justify warrantless entries in a criminal context, and we decline to do so here.” 306 Or at 237.
*379I would not suggest that Bridewell permits a warrantless entry in a criminal case in the absence of probable cause. Existence of probable cause is still essential. 1
Joseph, C. J., and Graber, J., join in this specially concurring opinion.

 In Bridewell, the court concluded its discussion with the statement:
“In situations implicating criminal law enforcement functions, law enforcement officers may enter without a warrant to render emergency assistance under the emergency/exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. In situations not implicating criminal law enforcement functions and not justified by the emergency/exigent circumstances exception, law enforcement officers, like private individuals, also may enter to render emergency assistance. In the latter situation, however, incriminating evidence arising from the intrusion by law enforcement officers must be suppressed.” 306 Or at 239. (Footnotes omitted.)

 State v. Apodaca, 85 Or App 128, 735 P2d 1264 (1987), is distinguishable. There, we held that “a broken front door screen and an open front door would not lead a prudent and reasonable officer to believe that a burglary was being committed or had been committed.” 85 Or App at 133. Here, however, the police were presented with additional circumstances rendering the possibility of an innocuous explanation more remote. We also noted in Apodaca that the police observed marijuana through the windows before entering the home.