From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Girod

Oregon Court of Appeals
Sep 21, 2011
263 P.3d 1113 (Or. Ct. App. 2011)

Opinion

09CR0798; A144502.

2011-09-21

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Joshua B. GIROD, aka Joshua Bradly Girod, Defendant–Respondent.

John R. Kroger, Attorney General, David B. Thompson, Interim Solicitor General, and Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for appellant.Daniel M. Hinrichs filed the brief for respondent.


John R. Kroger, Attorney General, David B. Thompson, Interim Solicitor General, and Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for appellant.Daniel M. Hinrichs filed the brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), the state appeals from the trial court's suppression of a breath test result. In reliance on our opinion in State v. Machuca, 231 Or.App. 232, 218 P.3d 145 (2009), rev'd, 347 Or. 644, 227 P.3d 729 (2010), the trial court held that defendant had not voluntarily consented to the test and that there were no exigent circumstances that would justify a warrantless seizure of defendant's breath sample. We agree with the state that in light of the Supreme Court's opinion reversing this court in Machuca and this court's opinion in State v. Allen, 234 Or.App. 363, 228 P.3d 606 (2010), the trial court erred in excluding the breath test results and the order suppressing the evidence must be reversed.

Officer Kirk stopped defendant for the offense of reckless driving, and it is undisputed on appeal that he immediately thereafter developed probable cause to believe that defendant had committed the offense of DUII. Under the Supreme Court's opinion in Machuca, when an officer has probable cause to arrest a person for a crime involving the blood alcohol content of the suspect, “the evanescent nature of a suspect's blood alcohol content is an exigent circumstances that will ordinarily permit a warrantless blood draw[.]” 347 Or. at 657, 227 P.3d 729. In Allen, we applied the holding of Machuca to a breath test. 234 Or.App. at 364, 228 P.3d 606. We conclude for that reason that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress the breath test.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

State v. Girod

Oregon Court of Appeals
Sep 21, 2011
263 P.3d 1113 (Or. Ct. App. 2011)
Case details for

State v. Girod

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSHUA B. GIROD, aka Joshua…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Sep 21, 2011

Citations

263 P.3d 1113 (Or. Ct. App. 2011)
263 P.3d 1113