State v. Stone, 346 P.3d 595

Officer observed defendant intoxicated in a Wal-Mart parking lot and conducted a welfare check to prevent him from crossing a four-lane highway.
Defendant smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, balance issues, and injuries suggesting prior road rash; he indicated he was walking his bike home.
Officer decided to transport defendant to a detox facility; defendant provided ID and stated he had drunk too much to ride his bike.
While in the parking lot, officer informed defendant he would be handcuffed and taken to detox; defendant admitted possessing marijuana in his backpack.
Defendant consented orally and in writing to a backpack search; marijuana found and later measured as 1.57 ounces.
Defendant moved to suppress statements and the marijuana, arguing Miranda warnings were required under Article I, section 12 and the Fifth Amendment; trial court denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Miranda warnings required under Article I, section 12?	Defendant argued compelling circumstances existed due to detention for detox, creating custodial-like pressure.	Shaff framework requires warnings when police create a police-dominated atmosphere or compel interrogation.	No; circumstances not compelling; warnings not required.
Did the officer's pre-questioning detention and statements create a police-dominated atmosphere affecting custodial status?	Defendant contends that being told of handcuffs and detox elevated coercion.	State contends absence of custodial setting and coercive interrogation; detox hold was civil, not punitive.	Not custodial; questioning not coercive; no Miranda requirement under Article I, 12.
Was the backpack marijuana search unlawful or tainted by the interrogation?	Consent search followed a custodial setting; statements should have been excluded.	Consent was voluntary and independent of any custodial interrogation.	Search valid; suppression not required.

State v. Shaff, 343 Or 639 (2007) (Miranda analysis under Article I, section 12; framework for compelling circumstances)
State v. Roble-Baker, 136 P.3d 22 (2006) (establishes compelling circumstances standard under Article I, section 12)
State v. Northcutt, 246 Or App 239 (2011) (totality of circumstances in determining compelling circumstances)
State v. Carlson, 311 Or 201 (1991) (police questioning during investigation does not automatically create compelling circumstances)
State v. Prickett, 324 Or 489 (1997) (investigatory stops and field sobriety requests do not require Miranda warnings)
State v. Schwerbel, 233 Or App 391 (2010) (coercive interrogation factors; heightened confinement considerations)
State v. McMillan, 184 Or App 63 (2002) (police conduct demonstrating coercion in prostitution investigation)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (ordinary traffic stops generally not custodial; expectations of temporary detention)
State v. Vu, 307 Or 419 (1989) (warning necessity in stops not involving custody)