258 Or App at 649. The parties also agreed on the legal analysis for determining whether the requirements of the emergency aid doctrine had been satisfied. The dispute before the trial court at the suppression hearing was whether the state had met its burden of proving that those requirements had been satisfied. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court made findings, concluded that the emergency aid doctrine applied, and denied the motion to suppress. Pursuant to negotiations, defendant agreed to a stipulated facts trial on one count of first-degree animal neglect, with the understanding that he would be able to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, and the state agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. See State v. Pierce, 263 Or App 515, 518-19, 333 P3d 1069 (2014) (<HOLDING>). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial
holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress holding that an appeal from a denial of a motion to intervene as a matter of right is allowed under rule 2a2 holding that similar agreement allowed the defendant to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress holding that the state is not allowed to suppress evidence but it need not collect evidence for the defendant holding that an appellate court considers the entire record on appeal not just the evidence presented at the suppression hearing in affirming the denial of a motion to suppress