State v. Miller

“[Four nonexclusive factors guide the compelling circumstances determination:] the length of the encounter, the location of the encounter, the amount of pressure placed on the defendant, and the defendant’s ability to end the encounter.” State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 640-41, 136 P3d 22 (2006).

Defendant moved to suppress incriminating statements made to a police officer and the results of a warrantless blood draw. The bases for suppression were: (1) lack of Miranda waiver prior to the statements; and (2) lack of knowing and voluntary consent to a warrantless blood draw. The motion was denied.

Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution requires that police officers provide Miranda warnings before interviews when the interviewee is in full custody, or compelling circumstances. State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622, 627-28, 47 P3d 497, rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002).

Applying the Roble-Baker factors, Court of Appeals concluded that although Defendant was medicated, lying in a hospital bed, and in a hospital hallway, “a reasonable person in those circumstances would have understood that she remained free to terminate the [police] encounter.” Because the circumstances were not compelling, neither Miranda warnings nor waiver were required.

Although the defendant was intoxicated, and had been provided pain medication, there was no indication that pressure or threats were used to obtain consent to the blood draw. Thus, the record supported the implied finding of voluntary consent.

“Affirmed.”