State v. Ford
244 Or. App. 289
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Late at night on a cold December night, Bonds observed a pickup illegally parked on a rural road and conducted a welfare check.
- The girl in the truck claimed they were just making out; she stated she was 16 years old, while defendant's license showed 20.
- Bonds retained defendant's license after a warrant check and asked why they were parked there; defendant replied they were making out.
- Another deputy arrived; the girl was interviewed in the truck while defendant was questioned at the front of the patrol car in a one-on-one setting.
- During a roughly one-hour encounter, Bonds repeatedly pressured defendant for more information and told him the story did not match the girl’s account, implying guilt.
- Defendant was not given Miranda warnings, was not free to leave, and remained under close supervision as the questioning continued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the stop involve compelling circumstances requiring Miranda warnings? | State argues the circumstances were coercive due to location, duration, lights, and supervision. | Ford argues the encounter was not Miranda-compelling despite pressure. | Yes, compelling circumstances existed; warnings required. |
| Should the incriminating statements have been suppressed at trial? | State contends statements were lawfully obtained. | Ford contends suppression was appropriate due to lack of warnings. | Yes, statements should have been suppressed; reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaff v. State, 343 Or. 639 (2007) (coercive interrogation factors and need for warnings under Oregon Constitution)
- Roble-Baker v. State, 340 Or. 631 (2006) (compelling circumstances when officers created a police-dominated atmosphere)
- Schwerbel v. Schwerbel, 233 Or.App. 391 (2010) (public location reduces but does not eliminate compelling circumstances)
- State v. McMillan, 184 Or.App. 63 (2002) (compelling circumstances considerations in police encounters)
- State v. Nevel, 126 Or.App. 270 (1994) (factors contributing to lack of compelling circumstances)
- State v. Nunez, 243 Or.App. 246 (2011) (enumerates factors for compelling circumstances; central inquiry is police-dominated atmosphere)