and Submitted February 18, 2016
County Circuit Court 1310372CR W. D. Cramer, Jr., Judge.
Laidlaw, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for
appellant. With her on the brief was Peter Gartlan, Chief
Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services.
H. Ferrall, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for
respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General, and Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor
DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Duncan,
Judge pro tempore.[*]
Or. 825] Case Summary:
appeals a judgment of conviction for frst-degree animal
neglect, assigning error to the trial court's denial of
his motion to suppress evidence gathered as a result of law
enforcement offcers' warrantless entry onto his property.
The trial court concluded that the search was justifed under
the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement, as
that exception was described in State v. Fessenden,
258 Or.App. 639, 310 P.3d 1163 (2013), aff'd on other
grounds sub nom State v. Fessenden/Dicke, 355 Or. 759,
333 P.3d 278 (2014). Defendant argues on appeal frst that
Fessenden was wrongly decided, and second, that,
even under that case, the state did not establish that the
requirements of the emergency aid exception had been met.
defendant did not argue before the trial court that
Fessenden was wrongly decided, instead agreeing that
that case provided the relevant analysis, his argument on
that basis is not preserved for appellate review. On
defendant's second argument, there were specifc and
articulable facts from which the offcers could, and did,
reasonably conclude that the entry was necessary in order to
provide emergency aid to defendant's cattle. The trial
court did not err in concluding that the state had met its
burden of showing that the requirements of the emergency aid
exception, as the Court of Appeals described it in
Fessenden, had been met.
DUNCAN, J. PRO TEMPORE.
Or. 826] In this criminal case, defendant appeals the
judgment convicting him of first-degree animal neglect, ORS
167.330. Defendant moved to suppress evidence
gathered as a result of law enforcement officers'
warrantless entry onto his property, arguing that the entry
violated his rights under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon
Constitution. The trial court denied that motion,
concluding that the search was justified under the emergency
aid exception to the warrant requirement as we had recently
interpreted that exception. See State v. Fessenden.
258 Or.App. 639, 649, 310 P.3d 1163 (2013), affd on other
grounds sub nom State v. Fessenden/ Dicke, 355 Or. 759,
333 P.3d 278 (2014). Defendant assigns error to that ruling.
Addressing the narrow question properly before us, we
conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, there
were specific and articulable facts from which the officers
could, and did, reasonably conclude that the entry was
necessary in order to provide emergency aid to
defendant's cattle. We therefore affirm.
review a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion
to suppress for errors of law. State v. Ehly, 317
Or. 66, 74-75, 854 P.2d 421 (1993). We are bound by the trial
court's explicit and implicit findings of fact if there
is constitutionally sufficient evidence in the record to
support them. Id. at 75. We state the facts
consistently with that standard.
time of the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress,
Sheriff Glerup was the Sheriff of Harney County. At the time
of the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, Glerup
had more than 31 years' experience in law enforcement and
had investigated "several" animal abuse and neglect
cases in the county. Sergeant Needham was a [286 Or. 827]
deputy sheriff in Harney County, who, at the time of the
motion hearing, had conducted approximately 10 major animal
abuse and neglect investigations.
8, 2013, Needham went to defendant's property in Burns,
Oregon, in response to a call from Noelle Hauck, who lived on
a nearby ranch and had reported "that [defendant's]
cows were starving, and/or had no water or food."
Needham drove to the property, but was unable to see the
cattle. There is a hill with a lip, which can conceal the
cattle from view from the highway.
called defendant, who was at the coast, and explained that
the sheriff's office had received a report about the
condition of defendant's cattle. Defendant told Needham
that the cattle "were okay, " and that he had fired
the workers who had been taking care of them approximately a