Court Opinion

ID: 9536853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:08:13.811825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:25.263269
License: Public Domain

*279LEESON, J.,
dissenting.
I would hold that defendant’s confession was unlawfully obtained, and that the trial court erred by failing to suppress it and the fruits of that illegality. Accordingly, I dissent.
Larson testified that he arrived at the scene, briefly spoke with defendant, and then asked him to get into the patrol car. There were no handles on the inside of the doors, and the windows were closed and barred. At least three, and perhaps six, uniformed officers were present. Defendant was left alone in the patrol car while Larson interviewed defendant’s wife, who confirmed that she and defendant were having a fight, and that defendant had run her car off the road with his van. After that conversation, which lasted “less than five minutes,” Larson “let [defendant] out” of the patrol car. Larson noticed that defendant was sweating a lot, and was “elevated.” He suspected that defendant was on drugs. Larson indicated that he wanted “to talk to [defendant] further.”
Larson then asked defendant about “the dope business,” and, specifically, about whether defendant was carrying any methamphetamine at that time. Defendant confessed that he was.
Prior to interrogation in compelling circumstances, police are required to provide Miranda-like warnings. State v. Smith, 310 Or 1, 7, 791 P2d 836 (1990). Larson’s questioning of defendant was “interrogation,” because it was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. That interrogation followed several minutes of confinement in the back of a police patrol car during an investigation, after which defendant was given no indication that he was free to go. It seems clear to me that those circumstances were “compelling.”
Although the circumstances of the interrogation were compelling, the police failed to provide defendant with the required warnings. Therefore, defendant’s confession should have been suppressed. The state makes no argument that the physical evidence that was acquired on the heels of defendant’s confession is admissible, notwithstanding the prior illegality in obtaining the confession. *280Therefore, I would hold that the physical evidence also should have been suppressed.
I respectfully dissent.