State v. Cartier

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals held that evidence of the defendant’s refusal to perform field sobriety tests was admissible because the officer’s clarified request sought only physical cooperation and was unambiguous. The court held that the defendant’s refusal to take a breath test followed custodial interrogation under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution and should have been suppressed because Miranda warnings had not been provided. The court overruled State v. Gardner and part of State v. Higley, reversed the convictions, and remanded.

Holdings

1. Evidence of defendant's refusal to perform the field sobriety tests was admissible because, despite the officer's initially ambiguous request, his subsequent Rohrs admonishment unambiguously requested only physical cooperation and not constitutionally significant consent to a search.
2. The request for defendant's physical cooperation with a breath test constituted interrogation under Article I, section 12, because it was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating, testimonial response that the prosecution could introduce at trial. Because defendant was in custody and had not received Miranda warnings, evidence of her refusal had to be suppressed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence of defendant's refusal to perform field sobriety tests was admissible when the officer initially made an ambiguous request but subsequently clarified that he sought only physical cooperation and not consent to a search.
2. Whether evidence of defendant's refusal to provide physical cooperation for a breath test had to be suppressed because the request constituted interrogation under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution and defendant had not received Miranda warnings.
3. Whether the court needed to reach defendant's challenges to special probation conditions that were not announced during sentencing.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded