State v. Boyd

Under Article 1, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution, the police interrogated defendant in violation of his state constitutional right to counsel and the incriminating statements that resulted should have been suppressed. The officer should have known that further questioning of Defendant’s was reasonably likely to elicit from Defendant an incriminating response.

Defendant appeals whether police unlawfully interrogated a criminal defendant after he invoked his rights to counsel and against compelled self-incrimination, guaranteed by Article 1, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendant argues that he did not reinitiate interrogation; instead he asked routine questions associated with being taken into custody. The police interrogated defendant in violation of his state constitutional right to counsel and the incriminating statements resulted from that violation and should have been suppressed. In this case the officer should have known that further questioning of Defendant’s memory concerning the assault or the investigation was reasonably likely to elicit from Defendant an incriminating response. The decision for the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.