State v. Delong

When an individual consents to a search following a custodial interrogation where Miranda warnings were not given, that consent is not a knowing and voluntary waiver of the individual's rights under the Oregon Constitution.

Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant was pulled over for driving without a seat belt. Because Defendant did not possess identification, the sheriff detained him and began the process of determining his identity. The process involved a number of questions, however, Defendant was not read his Miranda rights. Defendant was asked if there was “anything in the vehicle that we should be concerned about.” Defendant indicated that there was not, and then volunteered a search of his car. The search uncovered a fanny pack with methamphetamine inside. Next, Miranda warning were given, the sheriff confronted Defendant with the items, and Defendant made incriminating statements. Defendant moved to suppress the physical evidence and the trial court denied his motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the items were uncovered in violation of his rights under Article I section 12, of the Oregon Constitution. On appeal, the State conceded that Defendant was in custody and should have been read Miranda warnings. However, the State argued that the evidence was properly admitted because of Defendant’s voluntary offer to search the car while in custody. The Court held that Defendant’s consent to search the car was a product of a custodial interrogation that was done without Defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights under the Oregon Constitution. Therefore the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion. Reversed and remanded.