exact identity of the substance is of no consequence in determining whether exigent circumstances exist. That is so because we cannot reasonably expect police officers, even drug recognition experts, to be able to determine which controlled substance, alone or in combination, is causing a person to act in such a way as to indicate intoxication. We conclude that, because the trooper in this case had probable cause to believe that a controlled substance other than alcohol would be present in defendant’s urine, and the evidence establishes that at least one controlled substance — cocaine—continues to change in urine, exigency normally exists.” McMullen, 250 Or App at 213-14 (emphases added); cf. State v. Mazzola, 260 Or App 378, 317 P3d 360 (2013), aff’d, 356 Or 804, 345 P3d 424 (2015) (<HOLDING>). In State v. Fuller, 252 Or App 245, 287 P3d
holding that warrant was required because there was no exigency to justify warrantless blood draw holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance holding that warrantless administration of fsts in nonalcohol controlled substance intoxication context was justified by the exigency exception holding that once federal agents had exclusive control of a footlocker its warrantless search could not be justified by any other exigency holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense