State v. N. J. D. A.

Before questioning, police must give Miranda warnings to a person who is in full custody or in circumstances that create a setting which judges would and officers should recognize to be compelling.” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638, 136 P3d 22 (2006).

Defendant, a youth, appealed after conviction of acts which resulted in a death caused by a house fire. Defendant assigned error when the court denied suppression of statements made by the youth prior to being arrested. Defendant argued that the statements should be suppressed because the circumstances in which the statements were made were compelling, and he should have been read his Miranda warnings before being questioned. The State argued that the circumstances were not compelling or custody-like. Before questioning, police must give Miranda warnings to a person who is in full custody or in circumstances that create a setting which judges would and officers should recognize to be compelling.” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 638, 136 P3d 22 (2006). The Court held that under the totality of the circumstances the youth was not in a compelling circumstance. The Court reasoned that there was no evidence that the officer used aggressive and coercive police interrogation practices and he never told the youth that he was required to stay or not free to leave. Affirmed.