Court Opinion

ID: 9790410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:52:36.052452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:54.169167
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.,
dissenting.
The majority holds that these cases are controlled by State v. Bridewell, 306 Or 231, 239, 759 P2d 1054 (1988) and its progeny.1 In Bridewell, a friend, after becoming concerned that the defendant might be injured, contacted police regarding his absence. The police went to the defendant’s remote residence and found it empty and in disarray, with the front door open. Not finding the defendant, they walked to a shop building about 125 yards from the residence. Without calling out for the defendant, they entered the shop and saw marijuana plants in another room, through an open door. The *28defendant emerged from the room in which the plants had been seen and shut the door behind him. The deputies asked that he open the door, but he replied that they needed a warrant. When the deputies responded that they did not need a warrant because they had already observed the evidence, he opened the door. The deputies seized the evidence that they had observed. The Supreme Court held that, even though the officers had entered the premises in a community caretaking function, evidence arising from their “intrusion” should be suppressed, because a warrantless entry by police into private premises is a per se violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Article I, section 9, prohibition against unreasonable searches.
Here, defendant’s wife called the 911 emergency number and requested emergency assistance for defendant’s life threatening condition. Two paramedics were dispatched, and a Medford police officer also responded to the call. It is the policy of the Medford police department to respond to such situations, because its members are certified to administer emergency medical procedures and may be closer to the scene than an ambulance. It is also department policy for the officer to remain on the scene after the ambulance arrives to assist the paramedics until dismissed by them. When the paramedics and the police officer arrived, they pounded on the door to defendants’ apartment. The wife opened it and directed them to an upstairs loft. Shortly thereafter, Officer Nopanen arrived and joined them in the loft. One paramedic testified that, if the officers had wanted to leave during the twenty minutes that he was treating husband, he would have requested that they stay and assist him. For purposes of treatment, the paramedic requested a sample of the drugs that the husband had consumed. He also directed the officer’s attention to the dollar bill and white powder on the dresser. Nopanen sought to assist the paramedic in his questions to the wife and strictly complied with the scope of consent that was given by her and her subsequent withdrawal of that consent. She never asked either officer to leave.2
In Bridewell, the court said:
*29“In situations not implicating criminal law enforcement functions and not justified by the emergency/exigent circumstances exceptions, 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.” (Emphasis supplied; footnotes omitted.)
This case differs from Bridewell, because there was no “intrusion.” An “intrusion” connotes “a trespass or encroachment: an undesirable or unwelcome bringing in or entering.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1187 (unabridged 1971). The wife invited the paramedics and police officers into defendants’ premises to assist the husband. Had she invited them to dinner and they had observed cocaine in plain view while there, I suspect that the majority would not argue that the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches is implicated. It was the intrusion in Bridewell that made the entry by the police tantamount to a warrantless search. It is the lack of intrusion that makes the entry here not a search. Bridewell, State v. Okeke, supra, n 1, and State v. Watson, supra, n 1, focus on the reason for the intrusion, i.e., emergency medical purposes; that focus is not germane to a constitutional analysis unless there has been an intrusion.
The fact that Nopanen responded to the wife’s invitation at a later time than the individuals who first were to the scene does not negate the nature of the entry. The emergency was still on-going when he arrived. Once in the loft, Nopanen did not intrude into areas to which the wife objected. His observations and the statement made by the wife that formed the basis for his affidavit in support of a search warrant were obtained while he was in a place where he had been invited to be. I would hold that evidence could properly be considered in determining whether probable cause existed for the issuance of a search warrant. The trial court erred in holding to the contrary.
Rossman, Riggs, and De Muniz, JJ., join in this dissent.

 Both State v. Okeke, 304 Or 367, 745 P2d 418 (1987) and State v. Watson, 95 Or App 134, 769 P2d 201 (1989) which are relied on by the majority, involved searches of purses for information for medical purposes without the consent of the owner. Here, in contrast, the wife invited the officers to enter the home.

 As the husband was being placed on a gurney to be taken to the hospital, he said that he did not need medical treatment and asked everyone to leave.