In this prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, the state appeals a pretrial order granting defendant’s motion to suppress the results of his breath test, ORS 138.06CK1XC). 1 A recitation of the facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. The trial court’s ruling was predicated on our decision in State v. Machuca, 231 Or App 232, 218 P3d 145 (2009) (Machuca I). After the trial court granted defendant’s motion, the Supreme Court reversed our decision in Machuca I, holding that,

“for purposes of the Oregon Constitution, the evanescent nature of a suspect’s blood alcohol content is an exigent circumstance that will ordinarily permit a warrantless blood draw of the kind taken here. We do so, however, understanding that particular facts may show, in the rare case, that a warrant could have been obtained and executed significantly faster than the actual process otherwise used under the circumstances. We anticipate that only in those rare cases will a warrantless blood draw be unconstitutional.”

State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644, 657, 227 P3d 729 (2010) (Machuca II) (emphasis in original).

This case is materially indistinguishable from Machuca. Accordingly, under the operative principles that the Supreme Court explained in Machuca TI, the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress.

Reversed and remanded.