State v. Rose

Under Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution the police must cease custodial interrogation when a criminal suspect unequivocally invokes his right against self-incrimination.

Defendant appeals the judgment. Under Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution the police must cease custodial interrogation when a criminal suspect unequivocally invokes his right against self-incrimination. If the suspect makes ambiguous or equivocal invocation of rights then the police must ask follow-up questions to clarify what the suspect meant before proceeding with the interrogation. To determine whether the defendant invoked his rights the court must consider the words, in context of the totality of circumstances that existed at the time of and preceding their being spoken. The totality of circumstances includes tone, inflection, and gestures that preceded or accompanied the defendant’s statements as well as the tenor of the conversation that preceded it. A reasonable officer must be able to understand that the defendant was invoking his right. In this case the trial court correctly concluded that a reasonable officer would have understood defendant’s statement as indicating literally that he could not formulate an explanation of the photos and not that he was asserting his right. The state conceded that the trial court erred in imposing attorney fees because the defendant will not be able to pay the costs. Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.