State v. Stone
Case # A152000
Full Text of Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A152000.pdf
A Police Officer saw defendant Stone walking his bicycle across a Wal-Mart parking lot one evening. The Officer claims that Stone had “an overall drunk like appearance,” including a flushed complexion, a disheveled look, and balance issues. Stone also appeared to have road rash from haven fallen down. The Officer encountered Stone to conduct a wellness check and decided to escort Stone, who smelled of alcohol and had slurred speech, to a dextox center. Stone told the officer that he had drunk too much and had been “X-Gaming” on his bike. At that point, the Officer determined that Stone would not have been free to retrieve his possessions and leave. He told Stone that he would be handcuffed and taken to a detox center. The Officer then asked Stone if he had anything he wasn’t supposed to have, and Stone replied that he had an ounce of weed in his backpack. Stone then gave oral and written consent for the Officer to search the backpack. Stone was ultimately convicted of Possession of Marijuana. He now appeals, contending that the Officer should have given Miranda warnings before asking if he had anything he wasn’t supposed to have. Specifically, he argues that the Officer violated Article I, section 12 and the Fifth Amendment by failing to give Miranda warnings and that, consequently, his answers to the Officer’s questions and the marijuana in his backpack should be suppressed.
The Court of Appeals notes that, to protect a person’s right against compelled self-incrimination, Article I, section 12, requires that, “before questioning, police must give Miranda warnings to a person who is in full custody or in circumstances that create a setting which judges would and officers should recognize to be compelling.” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638, 136 P3d 22 (2006). To determine if a circumstance is compelling, the Court of Appeals examines the totality of the circumstances, including “(1) the location of the encounter—that is, whether the venue was familiar to the suspect or subject to police control; (2) the length of the encounter; (3) the amount of pressure exerted on the defendant, including, e.g., officers’ affect and whether officers confronted the suspect with evidence of guilt in a coercive manner; and (4) the defendant’s ability to terminate the encounter.” State v. Northcutt, 246 Or App 239, 246, 268 P3d 154 (2011)
In Stone’s case, the encounter was not very lengthy and occurred in a public parking lot. Furthermore, the Officer did not use aggressive or coercive police interrogation practices, but instead merely asked Stone a question. The Court of Appeals also notes that Stone was not yet handcuffed and the Officer made clear that the handcuffs would be used to take Stone to detox. These facts support a conclusion that Stone was not in a police-dominated atmosphere. Stone therefore was not in a compelling circumstance, Miranda warnings were not required, and the trial court did not err in denying Stone’s motion to suppress. Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed.