State v. Delong, 260 Or. App. 718

Defendant was stopped for not wearing a seat belt and was handcuffed in a sheriff’s patrol car.
During custodial questioning before Miranda warnings, Robeson asked about anything in the vehicle; defendant volunteered consent to search.
Deputies searched the car; a fanny pack under the passenger seat was opened, revealing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
Defendant later received Miranda warnings after the initial questioning and made incriminating statements about the fanny pack.
The trial court denied suppression; the State conceded Miranda warnings were required, but the court found voluntariness of consent.
The appellate court held the suppression of both statements and physical evidence was required under Article I, section 12, citing Vondehn, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unwarned custodial questioning violated Article I, section 12	State concedes Miranda violation occurred	Violation tainted all resulting evidence and statements	Violation required suppression of evidence and statements
Does defendant's volunteered consent to search sever the taint from the Article I, section 12 violation	Consent was voluntary and valid to search the car	Consent obtained during custodial interrogation tainted by violation	Consent did not sever taint; taint remains
Should the causal chain be broken by independent-source or inevitable-discovery theories	No independent source; taint should be suppressed	Possession of evidence could be argued as independent of the violation	No valid break; evidence suppressed

State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462 (2010) (custodial interrogation without warnings taints both statements and physical evidence)
State v. Magee, 304 Or 261 (1987) (Miranda warnings required to validate waiver under Article I, section 12)
State v. Ayles, 348 Or 622 (2010) (tainted evidence and connected physical evidence may be suppressed when stemming from illegal police conduct)
State v. Kennedy, 290 Or 493 (1981) (voluntariness of consent under Article I, section 9; not directly addressing section 12)
State v. Rodriguez, 317 Or 27 (1993) (consent volumes in search; distinction from 12 context; no direct impact on taint under 12)
State v. Schwerbel, 233 Or App 391 (2010) (question about possession reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response; Miranda timing matter)
State v. Marshall, 254 Or App 419 (2013) (differences between Article I, section 9 and section 12 waivers; knowing and voluntary vs voluntary alone)