State v. Delong, 350 P.3d 433

Deputy handcuffed defendant and questioned him regarding anything in the car without giving Miranda warnings.
Defendant answered that there was nothing of concern and invited the deputies to search the vehicle.
Second deputy conducted a car search, discovering methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia after which Miranda warnings were given.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence and statements as fruit of unlawful custodial interrogation; trial court denied.
Court of Appeals held the taint derived from the Miranda violation and suppressed the physical evidence; Supreme Court granted review to address attenuation under Article I, section 12.
Majority reverses, adopts attenuation analysis, and remands for further proceedings on scope of the consent/invitation and related issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence derived from the Miranda violation must be suppressed	Delong argues taint derived from unwarned question should suppress evidence	Delong contends evidence did not derive from violation due to attenuation	No; taint attenuated, evidence not derived
Whether defendant's invitation to search attenuated the taint from the Miranda violation	State argues invitations to search were attenuating and admissible	Defendant argues invitation not sufficiently voluntary/attenuating under totality of circumstances	Yes; invitation attenuated taint; evidence not fruit of violation
Scope of invitation to search and admissibility of search results	State contends search fell within invited scope	Defendant argues the scope exceeded what invitation contemplated	Remand to Court of Appeals to decide whether search exceeded scope
Effectiveness of belated Miranda warnings on voluntariness of later statements	Belated warnings can validate voluntariness of later statements	Voluntary consent and attenuated taint may be insufficient to save tainted evidence	Remand context; majority treats belated warnings as effective where attenuation exists

State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462 (2010) (articulates 'derive from' standard and burden to suppress derivative evidence)
State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703 (2012) (multi-factor attenuation analysis for Miranda violations)
State v. Kennedy, 290 Or 493 (1981) (voluntary offers attenuate taint in consent scenarios)
State v. Rodriguez, 317 Or 27 (1993) (voluntary offer to search can attenuate taint)
State v. Unger, 356 Or 59 (2014) (attenuation factors for consent after illegal police conduct)
State v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) (discussion of attenuation between unwarned and warned statements; federal parallel)
Patane v. United States, 542 U.S. 630 (2004) (plurality view on admissibility of unwarned statements vs. fruits doctrine)
State v. Meade, 327 Or 335 (1998) (coercion in custodial interrogation framework)
State v. Joslin, 332 Or 373 (2001) (coercion and custodial interrogation principles informing warnings requirement)
State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462 (2010) (explanation of 'derive from' and belated warnings effectiveness)