Oregon Appellate Court--February 22, 2018

by: Rankin Johnson • February 27, 2018 • no comments

SEARCH AND SEIZURE
EVIDENCE
CONTEMPT
EVIDENCE
CRIMES 
SEARCH AND SEIZURE 
CRIMES 
CRIMES 
CRIMES 
CRIMES 

• SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Reasonable suspicion
• EVIDENCE -- OEC 403 balancing
• CONTEMPT -- Remedial contempt
• CRIMES--DUII
• CRIMES--Felon in possession of a firearm
• EVIDENCE -- Inferences
• SEARCH AND SEIZURE -- Consent searches
• SENTENCING -- Dispositional departures
• SENTENCING -- Consecutive sentences

</summary>

Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA

• SELF-INCRIMINATION - Compelling circumstances

Miranda warnings required for criminal suspect asked to come to police station to give his version of events.

Defendant, a cable installer, was accused of exposing himself to a customer. Police asked defendant "voluntarily" to come to the police station to give his side of the story. He did so, and was interviewed by two uniformed officers in a small room. Miranda warnings were not given. His version of events changed repeatedly during the course of the interview. Police asked about his sex life and his pornography-viewing habits. Police implied that his previous statements had been dishonest. Defendant ultimately made incriminating statements. The court observed that this was “a close case,” but decided that the defendant was under compelling circumstances and Miranda warnings were required. The case was reversed and remanded.

State v. Grimm 290 Or App 173 (February 14, 2018) (Egan, J.)

• SELF-INCRIMINATION - Compelling circumstances

Miranda warnings required for criminal suspect asked to come to police station to give his version of events.

Defendant, a cable installer, was accused of exposing himself to a customer. Police asked defendant "voluntarily" to come to the police station to give his side of the story. He did so, and was interviewed by two uniformed officers in a small room. Miranda warnings were not given. His version of events changed repeatedly during the course of the interview. Police asked about his sex life and his pornography-viewing habits. Police implied that his previous statements had been dishonest. Defendant ultimately made incriminating statements. The court observed that this was “a close case,” but decided that the defendant was under compelling circumstances and Miranda warnings were required. The case was reversed and remanded.

State v. Grimm 290 Or App 173 (February 14, 2018) (Egan, J.)*SELF-INCRIMINATION - Compelling circumstances

Miranda warnings required for criminal suspect asked to come to police station to give his version of events.

Defendant, a cable installer, was accused of exposing himself to a customer. Police asked defendant "voluntarily" to come to the police station to give his side of the story. He did so, and was interviewed by two uniformed officers in a small room. Miranda warnings were not given. His version of events changed repeatedly during the course of the interview. Police asked about his sex life and his pornography-viewing habits. Police implied that his previous statements had been dishonest. Defendant ultimately made incriminating statements. The court observed that this was “a close case,” but decided that the defendant was under compelling circumstances and Miranda warnings were required. The case was reversed and remanded.

State v. Grimm 290 Or App 173 (February 14, 2018) (Egan, J.)*SELF-INCRIMINATION - Compelling circumstances

Miranda warnings required for criminal suspect asked to come to police station to give his version of events.

Defendant, a cable installer, was accused of exposing himself to a customer. Police asked defendant "voluntarily" to come to the police station to give his side of the story. He did so, and was interviewed by two uniformed officers in a small room. Miranda warnings were not given. His version of events changed repeatedly during the course of the interview. Police asked about his sex life and his pornography-viewing habits. Police implied that his previous statements had been dishonest. Defendant ultimately made incriminating statements. The court observed that this was “a close case,” but decided that the defendant was under compelling circumstances and Miranda warnings were required. The case was reversed and remanded.

State v. Grimm 290 Or App 173 (February 14, 2018) (Egan, J.)*SELF-INCRIMINATION - Compelling circumstances

Miranda warnings required for criminal suspect asked to come to police station to give his version of events.

Defendant, a cable installer, was accused of exposing himself to a customer. Police asked defendant "voluntarily" to come to the police station to give his side of the story. He did so, and was interviewed by two uniformed officers in a small room. Miranda warnings were not given. His version of events changed repeatedly during the course of the interview. Police asked about his sex life and his pornography-viewing habits. Police implied that his previous statements had been dishonest. Defendant ultimately made incriminating statements. The court observed that this was “a close case,” but decided that the defendant was under compelling circumstances and Miranda warnings were required. The case was reversed and remanded.

State v. Grimm 290 Or App 173 (February 14, 2018) (Egan, J.)*SELF-INCRIMINATION - Compelling circumstances

Miranda warnings required for criminal suspect asked to come to police station to give his version of events.

Defendant, a cable installer, was accused of exposing himself to a customer. Police asked defendant "voluntarily" to come to the police station to give his side of the story. He did so, and was interviewed by two uniformed officers in a small room. Miranda warnings were not given. His version of events changed repeatedly during the course of the interview. Police asked about his sex life and his pornography-viewing habits. Police implied that his previous statements had been dishonest. Defendant ultimately made incriminating statements. The court observed that this was “a close case,” but decided that the defendant was under compelling circumstances and Miranda warnings were required. The case was reversed and remanded.

State v. Grimm 290 Or App 173 (February 14, 2018) (Egan, J.)*SELF-INCRIMINATION - Compelling circumstances

Miranda warnings required for criminal suspect asked to come to police station to give his version of events.

Defendant, a cable installer, was accused of exposing himself to a customer. Police asked defendant "voluntarily" to come to the police station to give his side of the story. He did so, and was interviewed by two uniformed officers in a small room. Miranda warnings were not given. His version of events changed repeatedly during the course of the interview. Police asked about his sex life and his pornography-viewing habits. Police implied that his previous statements had been dishonest. Defendant ultimately made incriminating statements. The court observed that this was “a close case,” but decided that the defendant was under compelling circumstances and Miranda warnings were required. The case was reversed and remanded.

State v. Grimm 290 Or App 173 (February 14, 2018) (Egan, J.)*SELF-INCRIMINATION - Compelling circumstances

Miranda warnings required for criminal suspect asked to come to police station to give his version of events.

Defendant, a cable installer, was accused of exposing himself to a customer. Police asked defendant "voluntarily" to come to the police station to give his side of the story. He did so, and was interviewed by two uniformed officers in a small room. Miranda warnings were not given. His version of events changed repeatedly during the course of the interview. Police asked about his sex life and his pornography-viewing habits. Police implied that his previous statements had been dishonest. Defendant ultimately made incriminating statements. The court observed that this was “a close case,” but decided that the defendant was under compelling circumstances and Miranda warnings were required. The case was reversed and remanded.

State v. Grimm 290 Or App 173 (February 14, 2018) (Egan, J.)*SELF-INCRIMINATION - Compelling circumstances

Miranda warnings required for criminal suspect asked to come to police station to give his version of events.

Defendant, a cable installer, was accused of exposing himself to a customer. Police asked defendant "voluntarily" to come to the police station to give his side of the story. He did so, and was interviewed by two uniformed officers in a small room. Miranda warnings were not given. His version of events changed repeatedly during the course of the interview. Police asked about his sex life and his pornography-viewing habits. Police implied that his previous statements had been dishonest. Defendant ultimately made incriminating statements. The court observed that this was “a close case,” but decided that the defendant was under compelling circumstances and Miranda warnings were required. The case was reversed and remanded.

State v. Grimm 290 Or App 173 (February 14, 2018) (Egan, J.)