# State v. Brown

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · September 8, 2011 · 245 Or. App. 489

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2331525

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAUL RAY BROWN, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** September 8, 2011
- **Citations:** 245 Or. App. 489; 261 P.3d 97; 2011 Ore. App. LEXIS 1272
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Haselton, Armstrong, Sercombe
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2331525

## Opinion text

*490
PER CURIAM
In this prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, the state appeals a pretrial order granting defendant’s motion to suppress the results of his breath test, ORS 138.060(l)(c). A detailed statement of facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. The trial court’s ruling was predicated on our decision in
State v. Machuca,
231 Or App 232 , 218 P3d 145 (2009)
(Machuca I).
After the trial court granted defendant’s motion, the Supreme Court reversed our decision in
Machuca I,
holding that,
“for purposes of the Oregon Constitution, the evanescent nature of a suspect’s blood alcohol content is an exigent circumstance that will ordinarily permit a warrantless blood draw of the kind taken here. We do so, however, understanding that particular facts may show, in the rare case, that a warrant could have been obtained and executed
significantly
faster than the actual process otherwise used under the circumstances. We anticipate that only in those rare cases will a warrantless blood draw be unconstitutional.”
State v. Machuca,
347 Or 644, 657 , 227 P3d 729 (2010)
(Machuca II)
(emphasis in original).
This case is materially indistinguishable from
Machuca.
Accordingly, under the operative principles that the Supreme Court explained in
Machuca II,
the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress.
Reversed and remanded.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2331525. Public record. Not legal advice.