Autopsy results would not be suppressed as the product of an allegedly unlawful search, which it was not

Defendant called the police because of his girlfriend’s death. They arrived and called paramedics. When it was determined that she was dead, they called the ME. After that a search warrant was sought. There were five entries all together, but the defendant only challenged the last two: the ME bound by statute to attend deaths and the one under the search warrant. As to the ME’s entry, the defendant’s consent to the first three entries by the call to the police required the ME to attend as well, and it was a continuation of the prior entries and with probable cause and exigent circumstances (“the evidence was in danger of degrading”). State v. Ferrara, 218 Ore. App. 57, 178 P.3d 250 (2008):

In this case, it is also obvious that there was probable cause to enter the trailer: defendant had reported a shooting, there was a body in the trailer, the cause of death was unknown, the victim’s scalp contained a wound of uncertain origin, and defendant gave inconsistent explanations about what happened. Here, a shooting had occurred, it was more likely than not that a crime had been committed, and evidence of that crime might still be on the premises.

Unlike in Brothers, however, there were exigent circumstances present that permitted the deputy medical examiner to dispense with the necessity to obtain a warrant. Despite the fact that the scene was secured, the evidence was in danger of degrading, and the medical examiner had a duty to take action in order to “preserve evidence relating to the cause and manner of death,” including taking the temperature of the body. ORS 146.103(3). Furthermore, in this case, the deputy medical examiner testified that his 3:00 a.m. entry was solely for the purpose of investigating the cause of death and that the police officers who accompanied him were there to assist him in that investigation. Unlike in Brothers, the deputy medical examiner’s efforts here were limited to examining the body and investigating the cause of death, and did not involve searching the residence. In sum, we conclude that the 3:00 a.m. entry was lawful because probable cause and exigent circumstances existed to create an exception to the requirement for a search warrant.