Here the officer entered defendant’s home in a DUI case to seize him for evidence of his intoxication. Exigency can permit an entry, but the state has the burden of proof on exigency, and here it failed to prove the time frame and the rate of dissipation to justify its claim. State v. Perrott, 288 Ore. App. 837, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 1420 (Nov. 15, 2017):
As framed by the state’s assignment of error and its sole argument on appeal, this case presents the narrow issue of whether the trial court erroneously concluded that the state had failed to establish the existence of an exigency created by the dissipation of alcohol in defendant’s blood, because the record lacked any evidence of the rate of dissipation. To satisfy its burden to prove the existence of an exigency here, the state was required to develop a record that would permit an assessment of whether, at the time he entered the property, the officer reasonably believed that the blood-alcohol evidence he sought was at risk of complete dissipation in the time it would take to get a warrant. State v. Ritz, 361 Ore. 781, 798 n 9, 399 P3d 421 (2017) (Ritz II). Given that the record does not include any evidence of the amount of time that the officer reasonably believed it would take for the evidence to be lost, the state has urged us to rely on our decision in State v. Ritz, 270 Ore. App. 88, 100, 347 P3d 1052 (2015) (Ritz I), rev’d, 361 Ore. 781, 399 P3d 421 (2017). Specifically, the state has argued on appeal that our calculation of the amount of time it could take for the defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) to drop to zero in Ritz I, which relied in part on the presumptive intoxication threshold of 0.08 percent BAC and used a dissipation rate of 0.015 percent per hour, applies equally here.