State v. Craigen, 524 P.3d 85

In 2011 Craigen faced four felon-in-possession (FIP) charges and had retained counsel (Gushwa), who informed prosecutors not to question Craigen without permission.
On December 30, 2011, Craigen shot and killed his neighbor; detectives interrogated him two days later without notifying Gushwa.
During the interrogation Craigen said he shot the victim because he believed the victim had set him up on the FIP charges; detectives then asked directly about the FIP firearms possession (charged crimes on which he had counsel).
Craigen was later charged with murder (and other offenses) and moved to suppress statements and evidence from the interrogation; the trial court denied suppression.
The Court of Appeals held the questioning about the FIP charges violated Article I, § 11 and that evidence obtained as a result must be suppressed; this Court affirms that holding.
The Court held the state did not prove the evidence was independent, inevitably discovered, or sufficiently attenuated, so the murder conviction was reversed and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Craigen)	Held
Whether police questioning violated Article I, § 11 when detectives asked about charged FIP offenses during interrogation about an uncharged murder	Police: questioning about the murder was permissible; right to counsel had not attached for the murder and Savinskiy II permits inquiry into certain new, different crimes	Craigen: asking about FIP charges (charged, counsel-appointed matters) without notifying counsel violated the right to counsel	Held: Violation — detectives impermissibly questioned Craigen about charged FIP matters without notifying counsel (Sparklin rule applies)
Whether evidence obtained from that questioning must be suppressed	Police: evidence admissible against the murder charge; any right-to-counsel issue as to murder had not attached	Craigen: exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence that is the product of the Article I, § 11 violation	Held: Suppression required — state failed to show independent source, inevitable discovery, or attenuation; evidence inadmissible for purposes of the murder prosecution

State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85 (establishes rule that once counsel is retained, police may not interrogate about the charged crime without notifying counsel)
State v. Prieto-Rubio, 359 Or 16 (adopts objective foreseeability test for when questioning about uncharged crimes implicates the right to counsel on charged crimes)
State v. Savinskiy, 364 Or 802 (narrow carved-out rule permitting questioning about a new, ongoing criminal conspiracy in limited circumstances)
State v. Davis, 313 Or 246 (remedy for constitutional violations requires exclusion to restore parties to pre-violation positions)
State v. Dinsmore, 342 Or 1 (evidence obtained after Article I, § 11 violation is inadmissible for all purposes)
State v. Jones, 248 Or 428 (exclusion of evidence obtained as fruit of illegal police conduct)
State v. Thompson, 370 Or 273 (sets out burdens and methods by which the state can prove evidence was not the product of a constitutional violation)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (recognition of the fundamental right to counsel in criminal proceedings)