giving of Miranda warning in Oregon

2011On appeal, defendant does not contest those rulings. 9 Accord Holcomb v. Hill, 235 Or App 419, 434 , 233 P3d 448 , rev den, 349 Or 370 (2010) (the fact that “throughout the conversation, [an officer] had probable cause to arrest [a suspect] * * * does not render the circumstances so compelling as to require the giving of Miranda warnings”). 10 As noted, the duration of the encounter in its totality was two hours, but the final 20 to 30 minutes did not involve any questions eliciting inculpatory responses. 11 Here, in contrast to Roble-Baker, where the defendant had to rely on the police for a

2006In order to protect a person’s right against compelled self-incrimination, there are two circumstances which require the giving of Miranda warnings to a suspect prior to questioning by an officer: (1) when the suspect is in “full custody” or (2) in a setting that judges and officers should recognize to be “compelling.” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638 , 136 P3d 22 (2006).

2010In fact, according to the state, the Court of Appeals went so far as to suggest that the giving of Miranda warnings itself has a coercive effect that negates the voluntariness of the subsequent statements, when the court stated that the warnings "`could perpetuate the person's perception that his or her liberty continued to be restrained as the officer pursued a criminal investigation by seeking consent to a search.'" Ayles, 220 Or.App. at 614 , 188 P.3d 378 (quoting State v. La France, 219 Or.App. 548, 557 , 184 P.3d 1169 (2008)).

2010In fact, according to the state, the Court of Appeals went so far as to suggest that the giving of Miranda warnings itself has a coercive effect that negates the voluntariness of the subsequent statements, when the court stated that the warnings “ ‘could perpetuate the person’s perception that his or her liberty continued to be restrained as the officer pursued a criminal investigation by seeking consent to a search.’ ” Ayles, 220 Or App at 614 (quoting State v. La France, 219 Or App 548, 557 , 184 P3d 1169 (2008)).

2019Cf. State v. Turnidge , 359 Or. 364 , 404 n. 24, 374 P.3d 853 (2016), cert. den. , --- U.S. ----, 137 S. Ct. 665 , 196 L.Ed.2d 554 (2017). ("The reading of Miranda rights is a factor that weighs in favor of concluding that a defendant subject to police interrogation understands his or her ability to terminate questioning and to otherwise seek counsel rather than cooperate with law enforcement.").

2019Cf. State v. Turnidge , 359 Or. 364 , 404 n. 24, 374 P.3d 853 (2016), cert. den. , --- U.S. ----, 137 S. Ct. 665 , 196 L.Ed.2d 554 (2017). ("The reading of Miranda rights is a factor that weighs in favor of concluding that a defendant subject to police interrogation understands his or her ability to terminate questioning and to otherwise seek counsel rather than cooperate with law enforcement.").

2019Cf. State v. Turnidge , 359 Or. 364 , 404 n. 24, 374 P.3d 853 (2016), cert. den. , --- U.S. ----, 137 S. Ct. 665 , 196 L.Ed.2d 554 (2017). ("The reading of Miranda rights is a factor that weighs in favor of concluding that a defendant subject to police interrogation understands his or her ability to terminate questioning and to otherwise seek counsel rather than cooperate with law enforcement.").

2019Cf. State v. Turnidge , 359 Or. 364 , 404 n. 24, 374 P.3d 853 (2016), cert. den. , --- U.S. ----, 137 S. Ct. 665 , 196 L.Ed.2d 554 (2017). ("The reading of Miranda rights is a factor that weighs in favor of concluding that a defendant subject to police interrogation understands his or her ability to terminate questioning and to otherwise seek counsel rather than cooperate with law enforcement.").

2014In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution required that particular warnings be given when “a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way.” The Oregon Supreme Court requires the same warnings in those circumstances under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution.

2014In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution required that particular warnings be given when “a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way.” The Oregon Supreme Court requires the same warnings in those circumstances under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution.

2011On appeal, defendant does not contest those rulings. 9 Accord Holcomb v. Hill, 235 Or App 419, 434 , 233 P3d 448 , rev den, 349 Or 370 (2010) (the fact that “throughout the conversation, [an officer] had probable cause to arrest [a suspect] * * * does not render the circumstances so compelling as to require the giving of Miranda warnings”). 10 As noted, the duration of the encounter in its totality was two hours, but the final 20 to 30 minutes did not involve any questions eliciting inculpatory responses. 11 Here, in contrast to Roble-Baker, where the defendant had to rely on the police for a

2011On appeal, defendant does not contest those rulings. 9 Accord Holcomb v. Hill, 235 Or App 419, 434 , 233 P3d 448 , rev den, 349 Or 370 (2010) (the fact that “throughout the conversation, [an officer] had probable cause to arrest [a suspect] * * * does not render the circumstances so compelling as to require the giving of Miranda warnings”). 10 As noted, the duration of the encounter in its totality was two hours, but the final 20 to 30 minutes did not involve any questions eliciting inculpatory responses. 11 Here, in contrast to Roble-Baker, where the defendant had to rely on the police for a

2011On appeal, defendant does not contest those rulings. 9 Accord Holcomb v. Hill, 235 Or App 419, 434 , 233 P3d 448 , rev den, 349 Or 370 (2010) (the fact that “throughout the conversation, [an officer] had probable cause to arrest [a suspect] * * * does not render the circumstances so compelling as to require the giving of Miranda warnings”). 10 As noted, the duration of the encounter in its totality was two hours, but the final 20 to 30 minutes did not involve any questions eliciting inculpatory responses. 11 Here, in contrast to Roble-Baker, where the defendant had to rely on the police for a

2010The facts of this case are more similar to those in State v. Shaff, 343 Or 639 , 175 P3d 454 (2007), than to those in Roble-Baker .

2010The facts of this case are more similar to those in State v. Shaff, 343 Or 639 , 175 P3d 454 (2007), than to those in Roble-Baker .

2010In fact, according to the state, the Court of Appeals went so far as to suggest that the giving of Miranda warnings itself has a coercive effect that negates the voluntariness of the subsequent statements, when the court stated that the warnings “ ‘could perpetuate the person’s perception that his or her liberty continued to be restrained as the officer pursued a criminal investigation by seeking consent to a search.’ ” Ayles, 220 Or App at 614 (quoting State v. La France, 219 Or App 548, 557 , 184 P3d 1169 (2008)).

2010In fact, according to the state, the Court of Appeals went so far as to suggest that the giving of Miranda warnings itself has a coercive effect that negates the voluntariness of the subsequent statements, when the court stated that the warnings “ ‘could perpetuate the person’s perception that his or her liberty continued to be restrained as the officer pursued a criminal investigation by seeking consent to a search.’ ” Ayles, 220 Or App at 614 (quoting State v. La France, 219 Or App 548, 557 , 184 P3d 1169 (2008)).

2009“Under the Oregon Constitution, Miranda-like warnings are required when the defendant is in full custody and may be required in circumstances that, although they do not rise to the level of full custody, create a setting which judges would and officers should recognize to be compelling.” State v. Zelinka, 130 Or App 464, 473 , 882 P2d 624 (1994), rev den, 320 Or 508 (1995) (quoting State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7 , 791 P2d 836 (1990), and State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 265 , 744 P2d 250 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2009“Under the Oregon Constitution, Miranda-like warnings are required when the defendant is in full custody and may be required in circumstances that, although they do not rise to the level of full custody, create a setting which judges would and officers should recognize to be compelling.” State v. Zelinka, 130 Or App 464, 473 , 882 P2d 624 (1994), rev den, 320 Or 508 (1995) (quoting State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7 , 791 P2d 836 (1990), and State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 265 , 744 P2d 250 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2009“Under the Oregon Constitution, Miranda-like warnings are required when the defendant is in full custody and may be required in circumstances that, although they do not rise to the level of full custody, create a setting which judges would and officers should recognize to be compelling.” State v. Zelinka, 130 Or App 464, 473 , 882 P2d 624 (1994), rev den, 320 Or 508 (1995) (quoting State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7 , 791 P2d 836 (1990), and State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 265 , 744 P2d 250 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2009“Under the Oregon Constitution, Miranda-like warnings are required when the defendant is in full custody and may be required in circumstances that, although they do not rise to the level of full custody, create a setting which judges would and officers should recognize to be compelling.” State v. Zelinka, 130 Or App 464, 473 , 882 P2d 624 (1994), rev den, 320 Or 508 (1995) (quoting State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7 , 791 P2d 836 (1990), and State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 265 , 744 P2d 250 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2009In State v. Ayles, 220 Or App 606, 616 , 188 P3d 378 , rev allowed, 345 Or 460 (2008), we stated: “Miranda warnings following an unlawful seizure or entry-does not per se attenuate the taint of the prior illegal police conduct.

2009Id.

2009“Under the Oregon Constitution, Miranda-like warnings are required when the defendant is in full custody and may be required in circumstances that, although they do not rise to the level of full custody, create a setting which judges would and officers should recognize to be compelling.” State v. Zelinka, 130 Or App 464, 473 , 882 P2d 624 (1994), rev den, 320 Or 508 (1995) (quoting State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7 , 791 P2d 836 (1990), and State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 265 , 744 P2d 250 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2009“Under the Oregon Constitution, Miranda-like warnings are required when the defendant is in full custody and may be required in circumstances that, although they do not rise to the level of full custody, create a setting which judges would and officers should recognize to be compelling.” State v. Zelinka, 130 Or App 464, 473 , 882 P2d 624 (1994), rev den, 320 Or 508 (1995) (quoting State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7 , 791 P2d 836 (1990), and State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 265 , 744 P2d 250 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).

1984Cf, Artman v. Ray, 263 Or. 529 , 501 P.2d 63 , 502 P.2d 1376 (1972). [5] In our initial decision in State v. Roberti, 293 Or. 59 , 644 P.2d 1104 (1982), we held that a police officer's present but uncommunicated intent to arrest a stopped traffic offense suspect did not require the giving of Miranda warnings.

1984Cf, Artman v. Ray, 263 Or. 529 , 501 P.2d 63 , 502 P.2d 1376 (1972). [5] In our initial decision in State v. Roberti, 293 Or. 59 , 644 P.2d 1104 (1982), we held that a police officer's present but uncommunicated intent to arrest a stopped traffic offense suspect did not require the giving of Miranda warnings.

1984Cf, Artman v. Ray, 263 Or. 529 , 501 P.2d 63 , 502 P.2d 1376 (1972). [5] In our initial decision in State v. Roberti, 293 Or. 59 , 644 P.2d 1104 (1982), we held that a police officer's present but uncommunicated intent to arrest a stopped traffic offense suspect did not require the giving of Miranda warnings.

1984Cf, Artman v. Ray, 263 Or. 529 , 501 P.2d 63 , 502 P.2d 1376 (1972). [5] In our initial decision in State v. Roberti, 293 Or. 59 , 644 P.2d 1104 (1982), we held that a police officer's present but uncommunicated intent to arrest a stopped traffic offense suspect did not require the giving of Miranda warnings.

1982Because defendant was not in custody, there could be no taint under Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471 , 83 S Ct 407 , 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963).

1982Because defendant was not in custody, there could be no taint under Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471 , 83 S Ct 407 , 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963).