State v. Gilmore, 256 P.3d 95

Two women robbed the Purple Parrot Lounge in Klamath Falls; defendant was charged with conspiracy to rob and first-degree robbery.
While awaiting trial on those charges, defendant sent two notes asking to talk to Detective Mogle about the investigation.
Detectives conducting the meeting included Detective Johnson due to a two-officer policy; Johnson had previously arrested defendant for the same case.
Defendant was surprised to see Johnson; she objected to his presence and defense counsel was not present during questioning.
During the interview, defendant made statements about the charged crimes and mentioned where the sword was; the officers did not advise her of Miranda rights or her right to counsel.
Defense moved to suppress the statements and evidence; trial court denied suppression; defendant ultimately entered a conditional guilty plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did defendant initiate the discussion about the charged crimes?	Gilmore initiated the discussion.	Gilmore initiated the discussion (arguably) or at least discussion occurred.	Yes, initiation occurred or not dispositive for waiver analysis.
Was defendant's waiver of the right to counsel knowing and intentional?	Randant standard for knowing waiver applies.	Waiver could be inferred from initiation and Miranda warnings (if given).	State failed to prove knowing waiver.
Are Miranda warnings required to validate waiver when initiated after counsel appointment?	Miranda warnings confirm knowing waiver.	Waiver may be knowing if defendant initiated after appointment.	Court does not decide mandatory Miranda requirement; records show no awareness of waiver specifics.
Should the evidence obtained be suppressed due to the right to counsel violation?	Statements and evidence were improperly obtained.	No violation or suppression warranted.	Yes, suppression warranted; remand for proceedings.

State v. Sparklin, 296 Or. 85 (1983) (right to counsel applies to interrogation about charged offenses; presence of counsel favored)
State v. Randant, 341 Or. 64 (2006) (initiation + waiver analysis for right to counsel; Miranda context informs knowing waiver)
State v. Davis, 313 Or. 246 (1992) (offense-specific application of right to counsel; unrelated investigations not barred)
State v. Foster, 303 Or. 518 (1987) (knowledge of Miranda rights supports knowing waiver after initiation)
State v. Meyrick, 313 Or. 125 (1992) (waiver procedures at trial context; informs waiver framework)
State v. Haynes, 288 Or. 59 (1979) (requirement that defendant know benefit of counsel to foreclose involuntary disclosures)