adopting federal definition of "interrogation" for the purposes of Article I, section 12

rejecting the state's assertion that a burglary and a robbery were not directed at the same criminal objective because earlier objective to steal victim's property continued during the course of events

discussing related issue

observing that, under ORS 215.130, a person is entitled to "continue a nonconforming use of land, so long as that use was lawful before a change in zoning made that use nonconforming"

treating mootness as threshold issue

noting that Oregon has adopted that definition of "interrogation" for purposes of Article I, section 12

noting that "the notation of previous disciplinary action on a student record can be sufficient to preserve" justiciability as a "black mark" on the petitioner's record but dismissing the case as moot because the records had been destroyed

defining interrogation for the purposes of Article I, section 12