Court Opinion

ID: 9628467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:21:24.753752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:05.928564
License: Public Domain

DEITS, J.,
concurring.
I agree that defendant effectively invoked his right to counsel when he responded to the detective’s clarification question with “I think it would be a good idea to talk to [an attorney].” However, I do not believe that the follow-up question was impermissible, as the majority implies, on the sole basis that it was a question. In my view, neither State v. Isom, 306 Or 587, 761 P2d 524 (1988), nor State v. Kell, 303 Or 89, 734 P2d 334 (1987), goes that far. Rather, those cases stand for the proposition that, when a defendant has invoked the right to counsel, interrogation by the police must cease. Of course, not every question constitutes interrogation. As I understand the concept, interrogation encompasses only those questions or comments designed or objectively likely to elicit an admission or waiver of a defendant’s right to counsel.1 In this case, defendant invoked his right to counsel, and the police followed up by asking, “Do you want an attorney at this time?” Although it is a close matter, I believe that that question constitutes interrogation under the circumstances of this case. *232For that reason, I agree with the majority that the waiver that followed was invalid.

 For example, in State v. Barmon, 67 Or App 369, 376, 679 P2d 888, rev den 297 Or 227 (1984), we said that “interrogation” in the context of a defendant’s waiver of Miranda rights consists of
“words or actions on the part of police, other than those normally attendant on arrest and custody, that the police should know are reasonably likely to solicit an incriminating response from the suspect.”
We also quoted from Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 US 1039, 103 S Ct 2830, 77 L Ed 2d 405 (1983), in which the United States Supreme Court stated:
“There are some inquiries, such as a request for a drink of water or a request to use a telephone that are so routine that they cannot be fairly said to represent a desire on the part of an accused to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation. Such inquiries or statements, by either an accused or a police officer, relating to routine incidents of the custodial relationship, will not generally ‘initiate’ a conversation in the sense in which that word was used in Edwards.” 462 US at 1045. (Emphasis supplied.)