State v. Sigfridson, 401 P.3d 1269

Deputy Dorland responded to a 9-1-1 possible heroin overdose call; defendant appeared intoxicated from alcohol and was the subject of the call.
Dispatch told Dorland defendant was on probation with a no-alcohol condition and that the probation officer wanted him detained; Dorland intended to arrest for a probation violation.
Before Miranda warnings, Dorland asked if defendant had illegal items; defendant (after some prompting) admitted possessing a capped syringe in his sweatshirt pocket, a "cooker" in his pants, and cleaning swabs.
Dorland then searched defendant and seized a capped syringe, the bottom of a Pepsi can with dark residue (later tested positive for heroin), and a baggie of cotton swabs; the syringe was not tested.
Trial court suppressed defendant’s statements as Miranda violations but denied suppression of the physical evidence, ruling the evidence would have been inevitably discovered in a search incident to arrest; defendant was convicted on stipulated facts.
On appeal the court considered only whether the state proved inevitable discovery by a preponderance of the evidence, and reversed for failure to develop a sufficient record to meet that burden.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether physical evidence seized after unwarned questioning was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine	Dorland would have lawfully conducted a patdown/search incident to arrest for officer safety and would have inevitably found the capped syringe and cooker without the Miranda-tainted statements	The state failed to prove it was more likely than not that a lawful patdown would have detected those items; discovery depended on defendant’s admissions and the record lacks facts showing the items would be identifiable as weapons during a patdown	Reversed: state did not meet its burden; record only supports possibility, not inevitability, of lawful discovery

State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (discussing standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Miller, 300 Or. 203 (describing inevitable discovery test and burden)
State v. Vondehn, 348 Or. 462 (suppression of derivative evidence from Miranda violations)
State v. Mazzola, 356 Or. 804 (limits on scope of searches incident to arrests for probation violations)
State v. Musser, 356 Or. 148 (inevitable discovery and independent-source principles)
State v. Taylor, 250 Or. App. 90 (state must prove procedures were proper and predictable)
State v. Owens, 302 Or. 196 (searches incident to arrest for officer safety)
State v. Sopiwnik, 176 Or. App. 127 (officer’s belief and reasonableness are decisive for patdowns)
State v. Musalf, 280 Or. App. 142 (object’s description required to justify removal from pocket on safety grounds)