a felony, nor does he dispute that the officers had probable cause to believe that they would find evidence of his identity in his car. Rather, defendant argues that no exigent circumstance existed that justified the officers’ failure to obtain a warrant. On that point, this court has explained that “ [a]n exigent circumstance is a situation that requires police to act swiftly to prevent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall a suspect’s escape or the destruction of evidence.” State v. Stevens, 311 Or 119, 126, 806 P2d 92 (1991). Here, the officers sought “to forestall a suspect’s escape.” Defendant was fleeing from the police, and the situation required the officers to act quickly to prevent his escape. See State v. Roberts, 249 Or 139, 143, 437 P2d 731 (1968) (<HOLDING>). This is not a case in which the officers’
holding alternatively that officers in hot pursuit need not obtain warrant before searching car that defendant left behind as he fled on foot holding um policy provider was the proper source of loss benefits for injuries sustained when claimants car was struck while he was seated in his car with his left foot still on the ground holding that even if an officers stop of a defendant who was on foot was unlawful the search of a parked car was justified by a different officer observing a gun magazine in plain view in the car holding that passenger of stopped car who fled from police was not guilty of obstruction without violence holding that the defendant abandoned the car he was driving thus relinquishing any reasonable expectation of privacy to the contents of the car when he jumped out of the stillmoving car and fled on foot during a high speed chase with police