Court Opinion

ID: 9618355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:11:20.11626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:27.527813
License: Public Domain

CARSON, J.,
concurring.
I write separately to reiterate the view, previously expressed by the lead opinion in State v. Smith, 301 Or 681, 725 P2d 894 (1986), that Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution does not require that persons detained for questioning by the police be given warnings similar to those required under the federal Fifth Amendment by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 86 S Ct 1602,16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). In Smith, the lead opinion concluded that Oregon law did not require Miranda warnings, as such, but did require that the state establish that the admissions sought to be introduced into evidence were voluntarily made without inducement from fear or promises. State v. Smith, supra, 301 Or at 697. Although the facts in this case, as found by the trial court, differ from the facts in Smith, they are such for me to conclude that the state has established that the statements made by defendant were voluntary and not the result of any inducement from fear or promises. State v. Nunn, 212 Or 546, 553, 321 P2d 356 (1958), citing State v. Blodgett, 50 Or 329, 335, 92 P 820 (1907); State v. Howard, 102 Or 431, 452, 203 P 311 *267(1921); and State v. Henderson, 182 Or 147, 173, 184 P2d 392 (1947). I would not, therefore, reverse and remand on the basis of state law.
Turning to the federal law, I do conclude, however, that under Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 US 420, 104 S Ct 3138, 82 L Ed 2d 317 (1984), defendant here was in custody as a result of police actions at the police station. I also conclude that these actions triggered the incantations which Miranda requires. Because the police failed to advise defendant of his Miranda rights before questioning, reversal and remand of the case to the circuit court is required. Accordingly, I concur in the result.
Peterson, C. J., and Campbell, J., join in this concurring opinion.