State v. Phillips

To determine whether circumstances are compelling for purposes of Miranda warnings, the court asks “whether the questioning occurred in a police-dominated atmosphere.” State v. Turnidge, 359 Or 364, 402, 374 P3d 853 (2016), cert den, 137 S Ct 665 (2017).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for Unlawful Delivery and Possession of Methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence derived from a search of Defendant’s home after the Defendant invited law enforcement inside her home and engaged in “nonconfrontational, very mild” and “comfortable” conversation. On appeal, Defendant argued that she was entitled to Miranda warnings before questioning by the police took place, as she was in a high-pressure situation, creating compelling circumstances to require the warnings. To determine whether circumstances are compelling for purposes of Miranda warnings, the court asks “whether the questioning occurred in a police-dominated atmosphere.” State v. Turnidge, 359 Or 364, 402, 374 P3d 853 (2016), cert den, 137 S Ct 665 (2017). The Court held that the record did not establish that a reasonable person in defendant’s situation would have perceived the circumstances as “compelling” due to a police-dominated atmosphere, based on the length, voluntary nature, and location of the police interaction. Affirmed.