State v. Walker

3 Citing cases

  1. Winroth v. Driver & Motor Vehicle Services

    915 P.2d 991 (Or. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 8 times

    State v. Schaffer, 114 Or. App. 328, 332-33, 835 P.2d 134 (1992); State v. Gainer, 70 Or. App. 199, 203, 689 P.2d 323 (1984). However, there is no bright line rule as to when circumstances are "compelling" for Miranda purposes under the Oregon Constitution. Rather, whether an individual is subject to the equivalent of "full custody" generally depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Smith, 310 Or at 7-8; State v. Magee, 304 Or. 261, 265-66, 744 P.2d 250 (1987); State v. Tobias, 131 Or. App. 591, 594, 887 P.2d 366 (1994); State v. Widerstrom, 109 Or. App. 18, 21-23, 818 P.2d 934, rev den 312 Or. 526 (1991); State v. Greason, 106 Or. App. 529,533, 809 P.2d 695, rev den 311 Or. 643 (1991); State v. Walker, 104 Or. App. 410, 416-17, 801 P.2d 877 (1990), rev den 311 Or. 187 (1991). It is an open question whether that determination is affected by the Supreme Court's characterization of field sobriety tests as a "search."

  2. State v. Rose

    109 Or. App. 378 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 10 times
    In State v. Rose, 109 Or. App. 378, 380, 382, 819 P.2d 757 (1991), we held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that the defendant had intended to use a pistol against a police officer who stopped the car in which she was travelling.

    Defendant argues that she was in custody and was interrogated when Stupfeld asked her whether she knew that carrying a concealed weapon in a car is illegal and that, therefore, he elicited her response in violation of her right against self-incrimination. We conclude that she was then in a "compelling setting" and that, therefore, warnings were required. See State v. Smith, 310 Or. 1, 7, 791 P.2d 836 (1990); State v. Walker, 104 Or. App. 410, 416, 801 P.2d 877 (1990), rev den 311 Or. 187 (1991). However, we also conclude that refusing to suppress her statement, i.e., that she had taken the pistol from her purse immediately before the stop, was harmless.

  3. State v. Greason

    809 P.2d 695 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 9 times

    In determining when Miranda-like warnings are required under the Oregon Constitution, the proper inquiry is whether a person was in "custody" when questioned by the officer. State v. Walker, 104 Or. App. 410, 415, 801 P.2d 877 (1990), rev den 311 Or. 187 (1991). "Custody" encompasses both "full custody," i.e., arrest, and circumstances that, although not rising to the level of full custody, create a "setting which judges would and officers should recognize to be `compelling.'"