344 Or 277•S054822, Opinion — State v. Saunders
Full text
277 Under advisement June 12, 2007, petition for review allowed, Court of Appeals decision vacated, and case remanded for further consideration March 6, 2008 See 221 Or App 1 16, 188 P3d 449 (2008) STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. COLIN ALEXANDER SAUNDERS, Respondent on Review. CCC C010764CR, C013567CR; CA A119606 (Control), A1 19607; SC S054822) 179 P3d 671 En Banc On review from the Court of Appeals.* Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the petition for review for petitioner. With him on the petition were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General. No filing contra. PER CURIAM The petition for review is allowed, the Court of Appeals decision is vacated, and the case is remanded for further con sideration in light of State v. Shaff, 343 Or 639, 1 75 P3d 454 (2007). "' Washington County Circuit Court, Gayle Nachitigal, Judge. 2 1 1 O r App 73, 153 P3d 144 (2007).
278 State v.
Cite as 344 Or 277 279 PER CURIAM The Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have suppressed all the statements that defendant made before the police advised him of his Miranda rights. State u. Saunders, 2 1 1 Or App 73, 83, 153 P3d 144 (2007). The C ourt of Appeals based its decision, in part, on State u. Shaff, 209 Or App 68, 146 P3d 389 (2006), which this court later reversed, State u. Shaff, 343 Or 639, 1 75 P3d 454 (2007). Relying on its decision in Shaff, the Court of Appeals rea soned that suppression was required because, at some point during the police interview, the circumstances became com pelling within the meaning of Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution and thus required Miranda warnings. See Shaff, 343 Or at 644-45 (explaining that Miranda warn ings are required when circumstances become compelling). The state has petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals decision. Having reversed the decision on which the Court of Appeals relied, we allow the state's petition for review, vacate the Court of Appeals decision, and remand this case to the Court ofAppeals to determine whether, under this court's decision in Shaff, the circumstances in this case ever became compelling and, if so, when that occurred. If the Court of Appeals concludes that the circumstances became compelling at some point during the police encounter, only the statements that defendant made after that point should be suppressed. See State u. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 643-44, 1 36 P3d 22 (2006) (suppressing only those statements made after the point at which the circumstances became compelling). The petition for review is allowed, the Court of Appeals decision is vacated, and the case is remanded for fur ther consideration.
1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
Under advisement June 12, 2007, petition for review allowed, Court of Appeals decision vacated, and case remanded for further consideration March 6, 2008 See 221 Or App 116, 188 P3d 449 (2008) STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. COLIN ALEXANDER SAUNDERS, Respondent on Review. (CC C010764CR, C013567CR; CA A119606 (Control), A119607; SC S054822) 179 P3d 671 En Banc On review from the Court of Appeals .* Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the petition for review for petitioner. With him on the petition were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General. No filing contra. PER CURIAM The petition for review is allowed, the Court of Appeals decision is vacated, and the case is remanded for further con- sideration in light of State v. Shaff, 343 Or 639, 175 P3d 454 (2007). \* Washington County Circuit Court, Gayle Nachitigal, Judge. 211 Or App 73, 153 P3d 144 (2007). <!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageHeader="State v. Saunders" --> <!-- PageBreak --> <!-- PageHeader="Cite as 344 Or 277 (2008)" --> # PER CURIAM The Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have suppressed all the statements that defendant made before the police advised him of his Miranda rights. State v. Saunders, 211 Or App 73, 83, 153 P3d 144 (2007). The Court of Appeals based its decision, in part, on State v. Shaff, 209 Or App 68, 146 P3d 389 (2006), which this court later reversed, State v. Shaff, 343 Or 639, 175 P3d 454 (2007). Relying on its decision in Shaff, the Court of Appeals rea- soned that suppression was required because, at some point during the police interview, the circumstances became com- pelling within the meaning of Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution and thus required Miranda warnings. See Shaff, 343 Or at 644-45 (explaining that Miranda warn- ings are required when circumstances become compelling). The state has petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals decision. Having reversed the decision on which the Court of Appeals relied, we allow the state's petition for review, vacate the Court of Appeals decision, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether, under this court's decision in Shaff, the circumstances in this case ever became compelling and, if so, when that occurred. If the Court of Appeals concludes that the circumstances became compelling at some point during the police encounter, only the statements that defendant made after that point should be suppressed. See State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Or 631, 643-44, 136 P3d 22 (2006) (suppressing only those statements made after the point at which the circumstances became compelling). The petition for review is allowed, the Court of Appeals decision is vacated, and the case is remanded for fur- ther consideration.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.