Court Opinion

ID: 9539981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:12:01.519374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:30.627632
License: Public Domain

BUTTLER, P. J.,
dissenting.
Because I do not believe that the officers were authorized to enter the apartment to search for and arrest Prim, I would not reach the issue decided by the majority and would affirm the trial court on different grounds. Accordingly, I dissent.
The state contends that the warrantless entry into defendant’s apartment was lawful,1 because there were *553exigent circumstances that justified immediate entry: “to find and arrest the second suspect (Prim), and to seize the evidence of the beer theft.” Those are two separate and distinct theories. Officer Putnam did have authority to seize the beer of the type reported stolen, which he saw when he arrested defendant at the front door of his apartment. State v. Bettles, 45 Or App 9, 607 P2d 216, rev den 289 Or 275 (1980).
However, the claim that Putnam was authorized to walk through the entire apartment looking for the other suspect is a different matter. I assume that he had probable cause to believe that the other suspect was in the apartment and that a search warrant to enter the apartment could have been obtained. Without a warrant, further intrusion into the apartment was not permissible, unless there were exigent circumstances. State v. Peller, 287 Or 255, 598 P2d 684 (1979); State v. Olsen, 287 Or 157, 598 P2d 670 (1979).2 Apparently, the state believes that the possibility that Prim might try to escape if the officers took the time to obtain a warrant created an exigent circumstance. In Peller, however, the court expressly rejected that contention:
“We do not agree, however, that the mere possibility that defendant could make a break if he were so inclined gives rise to exigent circumstances when there is no indication that he is, in fact, so inclined.
C<* * * * *
“Absent any indications that escape was imminent, the officers in the present case should have staked out the house and obtained a warrant before entering.” 287 Or at 264.
Because Putnam had no authority to intrude into defendant’s apartment more than was necessary to seize the beer that was evidence of the theft for which defendant was arrested, I agree with the trial court, albeit for different *554reasons, that the other evidence seized as a result of the unlawful search must be suppressed.3

 The majority says that defendant does not challenge the trial court’s holding that the entry to search for and arrest Prim was valid. Although defendant does not, in so many words, contend that the trial court’s conclusion on that point was error, he does, in apparent response to the state’s argument that the entry and search were lawful, devote over four pages of his brief to quoting from and discussing cases relating to the authority of the police to enter a defendant’s premises without a warrant. I do not see how we can say that the issue is not joined on appeal. We may affirm the trial court for reasons different from those it stated.

 In Olsen, the court discussed ORS 133.235(5), which provides:
“In order to make an arrest, a peace officer may enter premises in which the officer has probable cause to believe the person to be arrested to be present.”
It held that that statute would be unconstitutional if it were applied when there are no exigent circumstances. 287 Or at 165.

 The trial court concluded:
“The court finds that Officer Putnam’s entry into defendant’s apartment and subsequent search and discovery of Mr. Prim and arrest of Mr. Handran and Mr. Prim was warranted as legitimate exercise of police authority and not subject to constitutional restrictions. However, the court finds that the seizure of the stereo speakers and receiver, and transportation of those from the bedroom to the main room for display was an unlawful search and seizure in that it was not authorized pursuant to a lawfully obtained warrant and not subject to an exception to the warrant requirement of exigent circumstances, in that, there was no reason for Officer Putnam to believe that there was any exigency which required the immediate seizure of these items, in that there was no one with a motive to destroy or hide the items except Mr. Handran and Mr. Prim and both Mr. Handran and Mr. Prim were in custody.”