State v. Anderson-Brown, 369 P.3d 1248

PSU public safety officers approached defendant and two others in a campus area known for narcotics use; officers were uniformed but unarmed. An officer shouted “Get your hands up,” and defendant appeared nervous.
Officers asked questions; defendant made several statements (e.g., “I’m just freaking, man,” admitted intent to get high, and admitted heroin use 5–10 minutes earlier). Officers did not give Miranda warnings before some investigative questioning.
Officers discovered syringes, a scale, and a backpack near defendant. After being handcuffed on outstanding warrants, defendant asked if a friend could take his backpack and consented to a search; officers found a tin and spoon with heroin residue.
Defendant moved to suppress statements made without Miranda warnings; at the suppression hearing he ambiguously sought to “extend” the motion to challenge consent to search but focused mainly on suppressing statements. Trial court suppressed some post-interrogation statements but admitted volunteered statements and ruled consent to search valid.
At a court (bench) trial, the state introduced only statements the court permitted (and evidence of consent/search); defendant was convicted of heroin possession. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) all statements after the command to raise hands were compelled and should be suppressed, and (2) the backpack evidence should be suppressed as derivative of the Miranda violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether all statements after the officers’ command were compelled and required suppression under Article I, §12	State: Some statements were volunteered or non-investigatory (medical/safety) and thus admissible; post-arrest volunteered statements admissible despite prior Miranda error	Defendant: The atmosphere became compelling when officers commanded hands up; all subsequent statements were the product of interrogation and should be suppressed	Court: Upheld suppression in part but ruled volunteered statements (e.g., request to give backpack to friend; “I’m freaking”) admissible; any error in admitting other statements was harmless and did not affect verdict
Whether physical evidence from the backpack must be suppressed as derivative of the Miranda violation	State: Consent to search was voluntary and not shown to be derivative of any Miranda error	Defendant: Consent was tainted/derived from the Miranda violation and so evidence from the backpack must be suppressed	Court: Argument unpreserved—defendant’s written motion and hearing arguments did not clearly raise a derivative-Miranda theory; trial court had ruled consent voluntary; appellate court declined to consider the unpreserved derivative theory

State v. Delong, 357 Or. 365, 350 P.3d 433 (discussing when non-Mirandized statements or derivative evidence must be suppressed)
State v. Lambert, 265 Or. App. 742, 338 P.3d 160 (preservation where motion sought suppression of “all evidence” resulting from alleged unlawful seizure)
State v. Sweet, 122 Or. App. 525, 858 P.2d 477 (defendant must frame suppression issues clearly to inform court and state)
State v. Walker, 350 Or. 540, 258 P.3d 1228 (practical test for whether a contention was preserved)
State v. Richards, 263 Or. App. 280, 328 P.3d 710 (applying harmless-error analysis in bench trials)
State v. Brown, 100 Or. App. 204, 785 P.2d 790 (consent to search is not an incriminating statement subject to Miranda suppression)
State v. Hatfield, 246 Or. App. 736, 268 P.3d 654 (collecting cases confirming consent is not suppressed under Miranda)
State v. Moore, 349 Or. 371, 245 P.3d 101 (when to exclude defendant testimony from harmless-error analysis)