No. 62 November 30, 2017 203

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON,

Respondent on Review,

v.

KEITH ALLEN SCHMIDTKE,

Petitioner on Review.

(CC 14FE0657, 14FE0922;

CA A158927 (Control), A158928;

SC S065098)

En Banc

On petition for review filed July 7, 2017; considered and 

under advisement on September 26, 2017.*

Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, filed the petition for review. Also on the petition was Ernest G. Lannet, 

Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.

Keith A. Schmidtke, pro se, filed the supplemental petition for review.

No appearance contra.

PER CURIAM

The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the 

Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded to the Court of 

Appeals for further proceedings.

The supplemental pro se petition for review is denied.

______________

* Appeal from Deschutes County Circuit Court, Walter R. Miller, Jr., Judge. 

285 Or App 340, 395 P3d 968 (2017)
204 State v. Schmidtke

Case Summary: In a criminal prosecution, the trial court denied defendant’s 

motion to suppress but failed to address all of the evidence in its order. The Court 

of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and defendant petitioned for review. 

This court allowed review, vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, and 

remanded the case for consideration in light of State v. Boyd, 360 Or 302, 380 P3d 

941 (2016). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order and defendant 

petitioned for review. Held: when a trial court denies a motion to suppress but 

does not explicitly address all of the evidence sought to be suppressed, a defendant need not request a specific ruling on the remaining evidence to preserve his 

contentions for appeal.

The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is 

reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. The supplemental pro se petition for review is denied.
Cite as 362 Or 203 (2017) 205

PER CURIAM

At issue in this case is whether, when a defendant 

files a motion to suppress all statements made during an 

encounter with police, and the trial court’s ruling addresses 

some—but not all—of those statements, the defendant must 

again request suppression of the statements that the court 

failed to address to preserve the matter for appeal. We conclude that a defendant need not request suppression of the 

statements a second time.

Defendant was identified as a suspect in a car 

break-in. Police officers contacted defendant’s probation officer, who issued a detainer authorizing defendant’s arrest. 

An officer spotted defendant and called him by name. The 

officer identified himself as a police officer and told defendant to keep his hands visible. Defendant complied. The officer told him that he was being detained pursuant to the probation officer’s order and handcuffed him. The police officer 

made a number of statements to defendant, to which defendant responded with incriminating statements. The officer 

then patted down defendant, arrested him, and gave him 

Miranda warnings.

The state charged defendant with, among other 

things, identity theft, first-degree theft, and second-degree 

escape. Defendant filed a single pre-trial suppression motion 

in which he sought to suppress all of the statements he made 

during his encounter with the officer, both before and after 

Miranda warnings were given, as well as some physical evidence. The trial court issued a written order in which it suppressed some physical evidence, denied suppression of other 

physical evidence, denied suppression of the post-Miranda 

statements, and gave defendant leave to file a motion to controvert a search warrant based on the suppression ruling. 

The order, however, did not explicitly address defendant’s 

motion as to the suppression of the pre-Miranda statements. 

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed 

the denial of his motion to suppress.

Before the Court of Appeals, the state conceded 

that defendant was in compelling circumstances before the 

officer administered Miranda warnings, but contended that 

defendant had not been interrogated. The Court of Appeals 
206 State v. Schmidtke

affirmed without opinion. This court allowed review, vacated 

the Court of Appeals’ decision, and remanded in light of our 

decision in State v. Boyd, 360 Or 302, 380 P3d 941 (2016). 

State v. Schmidtke, 360 Or 568, 385 P3d 78 (2016). The Court 

of Appeals then issued a per curiam opinion, explaining,

“[A]lthough defendant specifically sought at the suppression hearing to suppress his pre-Miranda statements, the 

trial court reserved its ruling on the motion. Later in a 

written order, the court addressed only ‘Defendant’s motion 

to suppress statements made by Defendant after being 

advised of his Miranda rights,’ which it denied. (Emphasis 

added.) The trial court never ruled on defendant’s motion to 

suppress his pre-Miranda statements, and defendant never 

attempted to secure a ruling on that part of his motion. As 

a result, because there is no ruling in the record for us to 

review, we do not reach defendant’s arguments and, accordingly, affirm.

State v. Schmidtke, 285 Or App 340, 341-42, 395 P3d 968 (2017).

Defendant petitioned for reconsideration, arguing 

that, because he preserved his argument regarding the 

pre-Miranda statements, he was not required to “take ‘issue 

with the trial court’s failure to address’” his argument in 

the trial court’s written order. The Court of Appeals denied 

reconsideration. We allow defendant’s petition for review 

and now reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

As this court held in State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 

550, 258 P3d 1228 (2011) when addressing a similar situation, “the fact that defendant did not take ‘issue with the 

trial court’s failure to address’ her argument ** * is not controlling. Once a court has ruled, a party is generally not 

obligated to renew his or her contentions in order to preserve 

them for the purposes of appeal.” As in Walker, once defendant in this case filed a motion to suppress and the trial 

court ruled on that motion, defendant was not obligated to 

request a specific ruling on suppression of the pre-Miranda

statements to preserve his contention for appeal. Rather, the 

trial court’s failure to address the pre-Miranda statements 

amounted to an implicit denial of the motion to suppress 

that evidence. Walker, 350 Or at 550. Accordingly, we reverse 

and remand the decision to the Court of Appeals so that it 

can consider whether defendant’s pre-Miranda statements 
Cite as 362 Or 203 (2017) 207

were the product of interrogation under Boyd. See Delzell v. 

Coursey, 354 Or 597, 318 P3d 749 (2013) (allowing petition 

for review and summarily reversing and remanding for further proceedings).

The petition for review is allowed. The decision of 

the Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded for further 

proceedings.

The supplemental pro se petition for review is 

denied.