No. 25A291

Brycen Dennis Scofield v. Oregon

Lower Court: Oregon
Docketed: 2025-09-12
Status: Presumed Complete
Type: A
Experienced Counsel
Tags: emergency-aid-exception exigent-circumstances fourth-amendment probable-cause search-and-seizure warrantless-search
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment
Latest Conference: N/A
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the warrantless search of a residence under the emergency aid exception violates the Fourth Amendment when police no longer reasonably believe an emergency exists and continue searching beyond the initial protective sweep

Question Presented (from Petition)

No question identified. : JUDGMENT FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT The judgment for which review is sought is the July 3, 2025, decision of the Oregon Supreme Court that denied Applicant’s petition for review from the precedential decision from the Oregon Court of Appeals in State of Oregon v. Brycen Dennis Scofield, Case No. $071856. In State v. Scofield, 338 Or. App. 190, 565 P.3d 869 (2025), the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed Scofield’s murder conviction on direct appeal from a conditional guilty plea on Oregon state charges. In his appeal, Scofield argued that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion to suppress evidence obtained following a warrantless search of Scofield’s home. Scofield argued that the search violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure (as well as parallel state rights), and that the emergency aid exception did not apply because, at the time of the warrantless search, police lacked a lawful basis to search the location under the “emergency aid” exception under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected that challenge, holding that the warrantless search was justified under the emergency aid exception. Scofield petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for review. That petition was denied on July 3, 2025. App-7. JURISDICTION The Oregon Supreme Court’s order denying review was issued on July 3, 2025. This Court has jurisdiction over any timely filed petition in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1257(a) and 2101(d). Under Supreme Court Rule 13.1, a petition for certiorari is due to be filed on or before October 1, 2025. As required by Rule 13.5, this application is being filed more than 10 days before the petition is due. BACKGROUND This petition arises from a warrantless entry into, and search of, Scofield’s home in September 2021. An associate of defendant's called 9-1-1 to report that he and his brother had witnessed defendant assault a person in defendant's apartment with a hammer. App. 2. The caller reported that there was blood “everywhere” and that the victim might be dead. Jd. The caller, who waited more than 20 minutes after leaving the apartment, provided his name and contact information but incorrectly identified the name of the apartment complex. Jd. Two bicycle officers located the correct complex and other police arrived at defendant's apartment and corroborated the details provided by the caller. /d. Police also observed defendant putting up a barrier over his back door and barricading himself in his residence. /d. at 2-3. At that point, officers were communicating on a single radio channel, known as “code 33” that is reserved for emergencies; when the emergency dissipates, law enforcement cancels “code 33.” After additional time passed, police were able to call defendant on his cell phone and convince him to come outside. When defendant exited his apartment, he was arrested and subject to an immediate search incident to arrest that revealed no weapons. /d. at 3. By that point, an hour had passed since the initial 911 call, nearly 90 minutes since the 911 caller left defendant’s apartment. Police then decided to search defendant’s apartment without a warrant citing the emergency aid exception under the state and federal constitutions. Id. at 3-4. Inside the apartment, police first “cleared” the area by doing an initial sweep of the downstairs and upstairs. Police did not observe evidence of a hammer attack in their initial sweep but did notice a refrigerator lying on the floor. Once the initial sweep was complete, Lieutenant Cromwell, the officer in charge, reported to fellow officers that “we’re not seeing any evidence of a hammer slaying.” Because the emergency had dissipated, Cromwell then called out on the radio that officers “can lift code 33.” Despite police’s belief that the emergency dissipated, Cromwell ordered officers to recheck certain areas, including the refrigerator he noticed on the way up. /

Docket Entries

2025-09-12
Application (25A291) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until October 31, 2025.
2025-09-10
Application (25A291) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 1, 2025 to October 31, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Brycen Dennis Scofield
Zachary Jared SternStern Law, Petitioner
Zachary Jared SternStern Law, Petitioner