Court Opinion

ID: 9546781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:35:16.122376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:51.111521
License: Public Domain

RIGGS, J.,
dissenting.
Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusions that the search in this case was conducted without probable cause and in the absence of exigent circumstances, I dissent.
I believe that the investigating officers in this case had probable cause to believe that criminal activity was occuring within defendants’ home.1 Although it was a cold winter morning, the home stood open to the elements. A vehicle was in the driveway. Defendants were reported to be out of town.
We have previously held that exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry when the suspect is still present at the scene of a burglary. Collier v. City of Portland, 57 Or App 341, 346, 644 P2d 1139 (1982); State v. Schrag, 21 Or App 655, 657, 536 P2d 461, rev den (1975). I would hold that the officers, having probable cause to believe that a thief would be found within burglarized premises, were justified in making a warrantless entry for the limited purpose of apprehending the suspect.
I agree with the majority that State v. Bridewell, 306 Or 231, 759 P2d 1054 (1988), would bar the use of the evidence *380seized were this a search conducted pursuant to a civil investigation, sometimes euphemistically known as “community caretaking.” This is not such a case. These officers were investigating what they had probable cause to believe was a burglary, and I do not believe an appropriate application of the Bridewell analysis requires suppression under these facts.
Rossman, J., joins in this dissent.