State v. Schmidtke, S065098

Defendant Schmidtke was identified as a suspect in a car break-in; a probation officer issued a detainer and officers located and detained him.
An officer identified himself, told Schmidtke to keep his hands visible, stated Schmidtke was detained per probation, and handcuffed him; the officer made multiple statements both before and after giving Miranda warnings.
Schmidtke made incriminating statements before Miranda warnings (pre-Miranda) and after warnings (post-Miranda); police then patted him down and arrested him.
Schmidtke filed a single pretrial motion seeking suppression of all statements (pre- and post-Miranda) and some physical evidence; the trial court’s written order suppressed some physical evidence, denied suppression of other physical evidence and of post-Miranda statements, but did not explicitly address pre-Miranda statements.
Schmidtke entered a conditional guilty plea, appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed (per curiam) because the trial court’s order did not rule on the pre-Miranda portion and Schmidtke did not seek a specific ruling.
The Oregon Supreme Court granted review, reversed the Court of Appeals, and remanded for consideration under State v. Boyd, holding that the trial court’s failure to rule on part of a suppression motion is an implicit denial and does not require the defendant to renew the request to preserve the issue for appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant must renew suppression request when trial court’s written order addresses only part of the motion	State: No ruling on pre-Miranda statements in the record; defendant failed to secure a ruling, so issue not preserved	Schmidtke: His initial motion preserved suppression of all statements; no need to request a separate ruling on the part the court omitted	Court: No renewal required; omission amounted to implicit denial, preserving the issue for appeal
Whether pre-Miranda statements were interrogation under Boyd	State: Contended defendant was not interrogated pre-Miranda	Schmidtke: Argued the officer’s statements elicited incriminating responses (interrogation)	Court: Remanded to Court of Appeals to consider whether pre-Miranda statements were product of interrogation under Boyd

State v. Boyd, 360 Or 302, 380 P3d 941 (2016) (defines interrogation and governs voluntariness of pre-Miranda statements)
State v. Walker, 350 Or 540, 258 P3d 1228 (2011) (once a court rules on a motion, a party need not renew contentions to preserve them on appeal)
Delzell v. Coursey, 354 Or 597, 318 P3d 749 (2013) (summarily reversing and remanding for further proceedings in related preservation contexts)
State v. Schmidtke, 285 Or App 340, 395 P3d 968 (2017) (Court of Appeals per curiam opinion affirming due to absence of explicit ruling on pre-Miranda statements)