State v. Allen

According to Savinskiy, the Article 1, section 11 protections do not attach to police investigation into “new criminal activity in progress.” State v. Savinskiy, 364 Or 802, 411 P3d 557, adh’d to as modified on recons, 365 Or 463, 445 P3d 307 (2019).

On remand from the Oregon Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals reconsidered its decision where they reversed the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress. In the original decision, the Court reversed the trial court and relied on State v. Prieto-Rubio, 359 Or 16, 376 P3d 255 (2016). There, the Court found that the defendant was subject to unlawful interrogation for an uncharged crime that was “sufficiently related” to the charged conduct. The Oregon Supreme Court, in the interim, released its opinion in State v. Savinskiy, 364 Or 802, 411 P3d 557, adh’d to as modified on recons, 365 Or 463, 445 P3d 307 (2019). According to Savinskiy, the Article 1, section 11 protections do not attach to police investigation into “new criminal activity in progress.” On the facts of this case, the Court held that Defendant engaged in new criminal activity by soliciting the murder of a witness in his pending murder trial. Convictions  for  attempted  aggravated  murder reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.