State v. Magee (1987)

A suspect is in “full custody” when he or she has been formally arrested or “placed under restraint by police acting in their official capacity.” State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622, 628 , 47 P3d 497 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002); see also State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 266 , 744 P2d 250 (1987) (“When this defendant was told by an officer investigating assault charges that he could not leave the police station because he was involved in the fight, this constituted ‘custody’ adequate …

See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 455-57 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966) (explaining that warnings are necessary to ensure Cite as 309 Or App 95 (2021) 103 that a person’s statement is truly the product of free choice when that person is placed in an “incommunicado police- dominated atmosphere”); Magee, 304 Or at 264-65 (recog- nizing that the state Miranda requirement protects the same interests as the federal requirement).

But an enclosure is not essential * * Id. at 265 (emphasis added).

It is not necessary that a person be told that he is not free to leave before he is considered to be in custody, State v. Smith, supra , but, if he is told that, he is considered to be in custody "adequate to require a warning before questioning." State v. Magee, 304 Or. at 266, 744 P.2d 250 .

Three concurring judges would have held that Article I, section 12, does not require warnings. 304 Or at 266-67 (Carson, J., concurring).

See, e.g., State v. Magee, 304 Or 261 , 744 P2d 250 (1987) (per curiam decision, with three members concurring).

See Magee, 304 Or at 265 (stating test objectively).

See Magee, 304 Or at 264-65 (recognizing that state Miranda requirement protects same interests as federal requirement); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 455-57 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966) (explaining that warnings are necessary to ensure that a person’s statement is truly the product of free choice when that person is placed in an “incommunicado police-dominated atmosphere”).

See Magee, 304 Or at 264-65 (recognizing that state Miranda requirement protects same interests as federal requirement); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 455-57 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966) (explaining that warnings are necessary to ensure that a person’s statement is truly the product of free choice when that person is placed in an ‘incommunicado police-dominated atmosphere’).” 340 Or at 641 .

See State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 265-66 , 744 P2d 250 (1987) (so stating).

See State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 266 , 744 P2d 250 (1987) (so stating).

State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638 , 136 P3d 22 (2006); see also State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 264-66 , 744 P2d 250 (1987) (identifying Article I, section 12, as a source independent of the federal constitution that requires police to give a defendant Miranda-type warnings).

See, e.g., State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 263 , 744 P2d 250 (1987) (the defendant was told *17 by an officer investigating assault charges that he could not leave the police station because the officer believed that he was involved in the fight that had occurred).

See State v. Magee, 304 Or. 261, 265 , 744 P.2d 250 (1987) (per curiam).

See State v. Magee, 304 Or 261 , 744 P2d 250 (1987).

See, e.g., State v. Magee, 304 Or. 261, 263 , 744 P.2d 250 (1987).

See State v. Magee, 304 Or 261 , 744 P2d 250 (1987).

See State v. Magee, 304 Or 261 , 744 P2d 250 (1987). 3 The state argues that the officer did not have to give defendant Miranda warnings, because she was subject to arrest for a misdemeanor offense and the officer had the option to issue her a citation rather than take her into “custody.” The obligation to give Miranda warnings applies to misdemeanors.

Compare State v. Wood, 112 Or App 61, 63-64 , 827 P2d 924 , rev den, 313 Or 355 (1992), with Magee, 304 Or at 266 .

See Magee, 304 Or at 265 (full custody exists when restraint or detention is “official”).

See, e.g., State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 263 , 744 P2d 280 (1989).