State v. Beeson

Determining whether a breath test derived from a violation of Miranda requires a “totality-of-the-circumstances” examination of the facts to determine whether the causal chain between the violation and the test was broken. State v. Swan, 363 Or 121, 131, 420 P3d 9 (2018). This fact-specific analysis may include “the nature of the violation,” the time between the violation and statements, whether the suspect remained in custody, subsequent events that “may have dissipated the taint,” and other circumstances. State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716, 277 P3d 535 (2012).

Defendant appealed convictions for DUII and “recklessly endangering another person.”  Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress results of a breath test.  On appeal, Defendant argued that the breath test was tainted by the arresting officers’ violation of his Miranda rights.  In response, the State, after conceding that Defendant’s Miranda rights had been violated, argued that the breath test was “not causally related to the Miranda violation” or, alternatively, that the “intervening events dissipated the taint” of the violation.  Determining whether a breath test derived from a violation of Miranda requires a “totality-of-the-circumstances” examination of the facts to determine whether the causal chain between the violation and the test was broken.  State v. Swan, 363 Or 121, 131, 420 P3d 9 (2018).  This fact-specific analysis may include “the nature of the violation,” the time between the violation and statements, whether the suspect remained in custody, subsequent events that “may have dissipated the taint,” and other circumstances.  State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716, 277 P3d 535 (2012).  The Court found that the nature of the violation was accidental, the unwarned statements were not used, and subsequent events indicated a clean break between pre- and post-violation events.  Thus, the Court held that Defendant’s breath test “was not a product of the Miranda violation.”  Affirmed.