Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court held that police violated the defendant’s Article I, section 12, right to counsel by asking him 28 DUII interview questions after he invoked that right. The court further held that the defendant’s decision to take a breath test and the resulting test results derived from the constitutional violation and therefore should have been suppressed. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and the trial court’s judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendant's decision to submit to a breath test and the resulting test results were products of the officer's conceded violation of defendant's Article I, section 12, right to counsel.
- Whether Oregon's implied-consent statutes independently made the breath-test results admissible despite the constitutional violation.
- Whether asking defendant to submit to a breath test constituted interrogation under Article I, section 12.
Holdings
- Because the state failed to prove that defendant's decision to submit to the breath test was independent of the officer's repeated and flagrant violation of defendant's invoked right to counsel, both the decision and the breath-test results were products of the violation and had to be suppressed.
- Oregon's implied-consent statutes do not make a breath-test decision or results admissible when the decision to submit was the product of a violation of the defendant's Article I, section 12, right to counsel.
Key quotations
“When a suspect's decision to submit to a breath test is the product of a constitutional violation, excluding the results restores the suspect to the position he or she would have been in if the state had not violated the suspect's rights in the first place.” (363 Or. at 145-46)
“Following Spencer and Durbin, we conclude that the breath test results should have been suppressed as a product of the violation of defendant's Article I, section 12, right to counsel.” (363 Or. at 146)
Factual background
After an officer observed signs that defendant was intoxicated, defendant requested counsel and later was arrested for DUII and advised of his Miranda rights. Defendant expressly invoked his right to counsel, but the officer nevertheless asked him 28 DUII interview questions. Immediately afterward, the officer asked defendant whether he would take a breath test, denied a renewed request to consult counsel, and obtained defendant's agreement; the test showed a BAC of .18.
Procedural history
The circuit court denied defendant's suppression motions, convicted him after a stipulated-facts trial of DUII and reckless driving, and entered judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the breath-test decision and results did not derive from the Article I, section 12 violation. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed review, reversed, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The circuit court must conduct further proceedings after suppressing the breath-test results as products of the Article I, section 12 violation. The judgments on both the DUII and reckless-driving convictions were reversed.