268 P.3d 654
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hatfield was convicted of manufacture and delivery of marijuana and related offenses based on a residence search following his equivocal/unequivocal invocation of counsel.
- Police monitored a telephone call in which Hatfield agreed to deliver marijuana to an informant at the informant's home.
- Hatfield was arrested at the informant's residence, advised of Miranda rights, and told of plans to seek a search warrant if he did not consent to searches.
- Hatfield initially consented to searches of his person and car but not his residence, and later agreed to a residence search under conditions arranged by officers.
- The trial court denied Hatfield’s motion to suppress; on appeal, the court held Hatfield unequivocally invoked counsel, but the consent to search was not unlawful interrogation and was voluntary.
- The appellate court affirmed, upholding the denial of the motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Hatfield’s request for counsel unequivocal? | State argues request was equivocal. | Hatfield contends request was unequivocal. | Yes; Hatfield unequivocally invoked counsel. |
| Did the subsequent request for consent to search constitute interrogation after counsel was invoked? | State contends consent to search is not interrogation. | Hatfield contends interrogation occurred in seeking consent. | No; consent to search is not interrogation under both constitutions. |
| Was Hatfield's consent to search voluntary under the totality of the circumstances? | State argues consent was voluntary given Miranda warnings and explanations. | Hatfield argues coercion from custody and counsel invocation. | Yes; consent was voluntary. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baumeister, 80 Or.App. 626 (1986) (consent to search not an incriminating statement; not compelled to testify)
- State v. Fish, 321 Or. 48 (1995) (refusal to perform tests deemed testimonial; distinguishes consent to search)
- State v. Norkeveck, 214 Or.App. 553 (2007) (consent to search voluntary despite custody and counsel invocation)
- State v. Acremant, 338 Or. 302 (2005) (unequivocal invocation of right to counsel; affect on interrogation analysis)
- Bradbury, 80 Or.App. 613 (1986) (consent to search after invocation not precluded by counsel)
- State v. Scott, 343 Or. 195 (2007) (derivative right to counsel during custodial interrogation; interrogation standard)
- State v. Isom, 306 Or. 587 (1988) (unequivocal invocation of counsel described)