State v. Love-Faust

Compelling circumstances are such that viewed as a whole, a reasonable person in defendant’s shoes would feel compelled to reply to an officer’s questions. State v. Dunlap, 215 Or App 46, 57, 168 P3d 295 (2007). The court must ask whether the questioning took place in a “police dominated atmosphere.” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 641, 136 P3d 22 (2006).

Defendant appealed a judgment where his probation was revoked due to possession of methamphetamine. Before Defendant was convicted, he moved to suppress all evidence gathered as a result of a warrantless search that Defendant argued was presumptively unreasonable because the circumstances were compelling and Defendant’s Miranda rights were not read to him till after the search began. The State argued that circumstances were never compelling, and further, Defendant voluntarily consented to the search. Compelling circumstances are such that viewed as a whole, a reasonable person in defendant’s shoes would feel compelled to reply to an officer’s questions. State v. Dunlap, 215 Or App 46, 57, 168 P3d 295 (2007). The court must ask whether the questioning took place in a “police dominated atmosphere.” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 641, 136 P3d 22 (2006). The Court held that compelling circumstances were not present when viewed under the totality of the circumstances. The Court reasoned that despite three officers being present when Defendant’s PO questioned him, those other officers had no contact with Defendant and were distant from the interaction. Additionally, the court reasoned that because Defendant was on probation and his PO had reason to suspect potential probation violations, the manner in which questioning occurred was not threatening because nothing about the PO’s conduct was coercive. Affirmed.