State v. Lanier

A question posed by an arresting officer concerning possession of illegal substances is investigatory in nature and requires a Miranda warning. State v. Pender, 181 Or App 559, 562, 47 P3d 63 (2002); State v. Grover, 193 Or App 165, 174, 90 P3d 8 (2004).

Defendant appealed a conviction for unlawful possession of oxycodone. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress on the ground that he was not given a Miranda warning before making an incriminating statement. The State argued that the arresting officer’s question was one that was “normally attendant to arrest and custody” which served a non-investigatory purpose, and thus fell under an exception to the Miranda requirement. A question posed by an officer about possession of illegal substances necessarily has an investigatory purpose and is “designed to elicit incriminating information.” State v. Pender, 181 Or App 559, 562, 47 P3d 63 (2002); State v. Grover, 193 Or App 165, 174, 90 P3d 8 (2004). The Court held that the officer was required to administer a Miranda warning before asking the defendant about possession of any illegal substances and therefore, the trial court erred when denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. In Case No. 15CR06546, conviction for unlawful possession of oxycodone reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed. In Case No. 16CR09233, affirmed.