State v. Koch

Evidence acquired after a Miranda violation should be inadmissible, and its admission is grounds for reversal.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress urinalysis test results that were obtained after officers violated Defendant's rights under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, and committed plain error by imposing a $255 conviction fee. Defendant, who was on post-prison supervision, drove to a work release center. A deputy noticed Defendant appeared to be under the influence of something. Officers arrived to conduct a DUII investigation. Defendant was read Miranda and subsequently asked for an attorney. The officers continued to question Defendant and denied his request to speak to an attorney. In addition, the officers told Defendant he was not entitled to an attorney. After the request for an attorney, Defendant provided a urine sample. Defendant argued that the urinalysis evidence was derived from the prior Miranda violation. The State conceded that a violation did occur and did not argue that Defendant waived his right to counsel, but maintained that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a determination that the urinalysis did not derive from the violation. The Court held that under the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, the urinalysis derived from a constitutional violation, and the trial court's admission of that evidence requires that Defendant's conviction be reversed and the case be remanded. Reversed and remanded.