State v. Reed

For a finding of compelling circumstances, the trial court must determine that the "circumstances of the ... interaction, viewed in their totality ... produce[d] 'the sort of police-dominated atmosphere that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.'" State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 641 (2006).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for various drug crimes. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's partial denial of her motion to suppress statements that she made without proper Miranda warnings and the evidence derivative of those statements. On appeal, Defendant argued that she was placed in compelling circumstances during her two-minute interaction with the police and that her unwarned statements during the interaction should be suppressed. In response, the State argued that Defendant was not in compelling circumstances and, even if she was, her voluntary consent to search was sufficiently attenuated from the violation so as to remove the taint on the evidence discovered in her vehicle. For a finding of compelling circumstances, the trial court must determine that the "circumstances of the ... interaction, viewed in their totality ... produce[d] 'the sort of police-dominated atmosphere that Miranda warnings were intended to counteract.'" State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 641 (2006). The Court found that the circumstances surrounding Defendant's interaction with the police, when viewed in their totality, did not reach the level of compelling circumstances. Affirmed.