Oregon v. Mazzola
Annotate this CaseA police officer stopped defendant Dina Mazzola for two traffic violations. The officer observed signs of intoxication and developed probable cause to arrest defendant for driving under the influence of one or more controlled substances. The officer then asked defendant to perform several field sobriety tests (FSTs). After performing them, defendant was arrested for controlled-substance DUII. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the results of certain of the FSTs. The trial court denied that motion. Defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether, in denying defendant’s motion to suppress, the trial court erred in concluding that exigent circumstances had existed that, when coupled with probable cause to arrest defendant for driving under the influence of a controlled substance, justified the warrantless administration of the FSTs under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. Finding that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.