§ 2.7 Related Problems

LibraryCriminal Law in Oregon (OSBar) (2022 Ed.)

§ 2.7 RELATED PROBLEMS

§ 2.7-1 Fifth Amendment and Miranda—Detention versus Custody

Neither a traffic stop (ORS 810.410) nor a criminal stop (ORS 131.615) necessarily constitutes "full custody" or "compelling circumstances" necessitating Miranda warnings. State v. Shaff, 343 Or 639, 645-47, 175 P3d 454 (2007); see also State v. Schwerbel, 233 Or App 391, 395-99, 226 P3d 100, rev den, 349 Or 172 (2010). When applying either the federal or Oregon standard, most temporary detentions do not trigger the Fifth Amendment constitutional protections. Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 US 9, 11, 109 S Ct 205, 102 L Ed 2d 172 (1988); see State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7, 791 P2d 836 (1990). Miranda warnings are required when a suspect is in "full custody" or is in a "setting that judges would and officers should recognize to be 'compelling.'" State v. Magee, 304 Or 261, 265, 744 P2d 250 (1987). The question whether the circumstances were compelling hinges on "how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood his or her situation." Shaff, 343 Or at 645. The court must apply a totality-of-the-circumstances test, considering a "host of factors," including but not limited to the location and duration of the encounter, the amount of pressure exerted on the defendant, the defendant's ability to terminate the encounter, and the number of officers as well as their demeanor. State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 640-41, 136 P3d 22 (2006).

In Shaff, the officers arrived at the defendant's home on a welfare check and questioned the defendant about the injuries sustained by the female in the home. The court held that the stop did not amount to compelling circumstances and therefore did not require Miranda warnings. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that despite the defendant not being free to leave, the totality of the circumstances tipped away from compelling for several reasons: the encounter had occurred in the defendant's home, a location familiar to the defendant; the defendant could stand up and walk around; the encounter was relatively brief, lasting only about 10 minutes; and the police officer questioning the defendant did not pressure the defendant. Shaff, 343 Or at 646-47.

In State v. Ford, 244 Or App 289, 260 P3d 637, adh'd to as modified on recons, 245 Or App 500, 263 P3d 1110 (2011), the officers noticed the defendant's vehicle illegally parked on the side of a rural road in a remote area. When officers approached the vehicle, they saw a young, bare-chested female sitting on the defendant's lap. The officers developed reasonable suspicion that a sex crime had occurred based on the age of the female. They asked the defendant to exit the vehicle and proceeded to interview him without giving Miranda warnings. The court found that compelling circumstances existed, based on a number of factors, including the remote, secluded location that was not familiar to the defendant; the encounter lasting one hour; the presence of three officers at the scene; the officers having kept their vehicle emergency lights on; and the coercive overtones in the officer's interview technique. Ford, 244 Or App at 295-96.

Even after a protracted pursuit, Miranda warnings are not required absent a compelling setting similar to full custody. See State v. Clem, 136 Or App 37, 41-42, 900 P2d 1064 (1995). Likewise, conducting field sobriety tests on a person during a traffic stop does not automatically create the kind of compelling environment requiring Miranda warnings. State v. Prickett, 324 Or 489, 495, 930 P2d 221 (1997).

In State v. Phillips, 302 Or App 618, 459 P3d 909, rev den, 366 Or 552 (2020), the court found that compelling circumstances did not exist. In its analysis, the court reasoned that

the low-key nature of the encounter, which did not include threats, promises of leniency, or accusations that defendant was lying; the fact that the encounter did not last overly long and occurred in defendant's home; defendant's repeated invitations to search her home; and the officers' few straightforward questions of defendant

did not amount to a circumstance in which a reasonable person would have felt compelled to answer the officer's questions. Phillips, 302 Or App at 632.

Another important factor that the courts find can create compelling circumstances or an...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT