Court Opinion

ID: 9585543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:01:30.753104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:22.623864
License: Public Domain

WARREN, J.,
specially concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the majority but would hold that the critical point in determining whether Miranda warnings are required must be the earlier of the officer’s decision to arrest, as in Roberti, or the point in time when the objective information the officer has furnishes probable cause to arrest.
Relying on State v. Roberti, 293 Or 236, 646 P2d 1341 cert pending (1982), the majority concludes that a defendant is not in custody for Miranda purposes until “the officer had arrived at the decision, although uncommunicated to the motorist, to arrest him for driving while under thé influence of intoxicants.” 67 Or App at 604. The majority then relies on the trial court’s finding of fact that the officer made the decision to arrest at the completion of the sobriety tests to suppress the evidence given without Miranda warnings after that time. The trial court’s finding is entirely unsupported in the record. The only evidence as to when the subjective decision to arrest was made was the officer’s testimony that he decided to arrest defendant on the basis of his driving, objective symptoms, test performances and statements made after the tests were completed. That evidence cannot support a conclusion that his decision was made earlier. I sense that the trial court was saying that, after the sobriety tests were completed, the objective facts the officer knew amounted to probable cause as a matter of law. But for the trial court’s erroneous reliance on a “free to leave” analysis, it would have held that Miranda warnings were required to be given at the point when the evidence before the officer supported an arrest. That is consistent with Roberti.
Justice Lent’s opinion begins:
“The problem in this case is to determine when a uniformed police officer’s questioning of a motorist halted for improper driving became custodial interrogation. I would hold that it was from at least as early as the time when the officer had arrived at a decision, although uncommunicated to the *607motorist, to arrest him for driving while under the influence of intoxicants.” 293 Or at 76. (Emphasis supplied.)
Roberti does not hold that warnings under Miranda need not be given until the officer has decided to arrest the defendant; it holds that they must be given no later than that time.
The approach taken by the majority forces a trial judge to make factual findings as to when an officer makes a decision, even though uncommunicated, in order to determine whether the warnings were timely given. That strains the judicial factfinding role. I would hold that an officer cannot be free to ignore the objective facts. It is my view that defendant was entitled to Miranda warnings when the officer had probable cause to arrest, even though, subjectively, the decision to do so was not made until later.