State v. Miller

DUII Defendant’s Intoxication Did Not Invalidate Miranda Waiver or Consent

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) after crashing her car and later consenting to a blood draw at the hospital. She moved to suppress statements made to a police officer and the blood test results, arguing (1) she was too intoxicated to validly waive her Miranda rights and (2) too impaired to give voluntary consent to the blood draw.

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of both motions. The court found the encounter was not “compelling” under Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution and thus Miranda warnings were not required. Even though the officer provided warnings, the defendant was not in custody or pressured. Defendant was questioned in a hospital hallway and the conversation was brief. The court emphasized that merely being intoxicated or medicated does not render an encounter compelling.

Regarding the blood draw, the court held that under Article I, section 9, the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant’s consent was voluntary. The record lacked any evidence of coercion, and the officer's conduct was not overreaching or threatening. Finally, while intoxication may bear on voluntariness, the Court emphasized that they are bound by the trial court's findings that are supported by evidence, and that the trial court found that Defendant consented to the blood draw, with the implication that she did so voluntarily. Thus, the court AFFIRMED.