State v. Lanier

“Under Pender and Grover, we have held that a question about the unlawful possession of controlled substances is a question that, by its very nature, evidences an investigatory purpose and is therefore ‘designed’ to elicit incriminating information.” State v. Lanier, 290 Ore. App. 8, 15 (2018).

Defendant appealed a conviction for unlawful possession of oxycodone. While in custody, but before being read his Miranda rights, the police officer asked defendant whether he had any more marijuana. After asking the question, the officer then searched defendant and found unprescribed oxycodone pills. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence obtained resulting from the question before being mirandized violated Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution which protects against self-incrimination. The State argued that the officer's question falls within a "normally attendant to arrest and custody" exception, since the officer attested that the purpose of the question was not investigative in nature, instead it was to ascertain whether the defendant had additional marijuana before being transported to jail. “Under Pender and Grover, we have held that a question about the unlawful possession of controlled substances is a question that, by its very nature, evidences an investigatory purpose and is therefore ‘designed’ to elicit incriminating information.” State v. Lanier, 290 Ore. App. 8, 15 (2018). The Court held that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence because the question was “designed to elicit incriminating information.” Given that the oxycodone was obtained in connection to the question when defendant was not mirandized, such evidence should not be admitted at trial. Reversed and remanded in part; otherwise affirmed.