State v. Miller, 335 P.3d 355

Background

Officer Bergstrom observed defendant driving 57 mph in a 35 mph zone, initiated a traffic stop, and cited him for speeding.
During the stop defendant was agitated, initially produced an expired insurance card, later found but refused to hand over a current insurance card, and did not provide registration.
When asked if he had been drinking, defendant denied it, yelled, sped away, and subsequently drove recklessly (veering into the left lane, failing to stop at stop signs, accelerating away) while still being followed by Bergstrom.
Bergstrom believed defendant’s inability to recall driving maneuvers and escalating agitation indicated impaired perception consistent with intoxication, and ordered defendant out of the vehicle for field sobriety tests.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the officer lacked probable cause to demand sobriety tests; the trial court denied the motion, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, and appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer had probable cause to order field sobriety tests	Officer (State) contends totality of circumstances gave a trained officer reasonable belief defendant was driving under the influence	Devore argues officer lacked objective probable cause — absence of physical signs of intoxication and alternative explanations for conduct	Court held officer had objectively reasonable probable cause under the totality of circumstances and ordering sobriety tests did not violate Article I, §9
Whether absence of odor/slurred speech defeats probable cause	State: such signs are not required if other indicia support belief of intoxication	Devore: lack of physical manifestations undermines any inference of intoxication	Court: physical manifestations are not dispositive; trained-observer inferences from driving, agitation, memory/perception lapses suffice
Whether alternative lawful explanations negate probable cause	State: officer need not eliminate innocent explanations before forming probable cause	Devore: anger, frustration, or poor memory could explain conduct	Court: existence of plausible alternatives does not render officer’s conclusion objectively unreasonable
Whether federal Fourth Amendment claim was preserved	State: not developed on appeal; Court declines to address undeveloped federal claim	Devore: asserted Fourth Amendment violation	Court: declined to consider undeveloped federal constitutional argument

Key Cases Cited

State v. Koroteev, 222 Or. App. 596 (2008) (standard of review for suppression denial)
Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485 (1968) (trial court findings of historical fact binding if supported)
State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (1993) (presumption of factual findings consistent with ultimate conclusion when trial court omits specific findings)
State v. O’Key, 321 Or. 285 (1995) (definition of ‘under the influence’ under Oregon law)
State v. Nagel, 320 Or. 24 (1994) (field sobriety tests constitute a search under Article I, §9)
State v. Paulson, 313 Or. 346 (1992) (warrant requirement and exceptions for searches incident to DUII investigations)
State v. Stroup, 147 Or. App. 118 (1997) (exigent-circumstances exception requires probable cause to believe DUII)
State v. Spruill, 151 Or. App. 87 (1997) (probable cause defined as officer’s subjectively held belief that is objectively reasonable)
State v. Kappel, 190 Or. App. 400 (2003) (totality-of-circumstances approach; no single factor dispositive)
State v. Mendoza, 123 Or. App. 237 (1993) (training and experience make certain acts incriminating to officers)
State v. Forrest, 174 Or. App. 129 (2001) (erratic driving plus odor and halting speech supported probable cause)
State v. Gilmour, 136 Or. App. 294 (1995) (rapid speech and odor of alcohol as indicia of intoxication)
State v. Bond, 189 Or. App. 198 (2003) (presence of alternative explanations does not necessarily negate probable cause)
State v. Vantress, 195 Or. App. 52 (2004) (officer need not eliminate innocent explanations before concluding probable cause)
State v. Amaya, 336 Or. 616 (2004) (court will not consider undeveloped federal constitutional claims on appeal)
State v. McNeely, 330 Or. 457 (2000) (same principle regarding undeveloped federal claims)