State v. Dean
309 Or.App. 249 (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When police violate a suspect's invoked right to counsel by continuing to interrogate them, any subsequent suspect-initiated waiver of that right is presumed involuntary. The state bears a heavy burden to prove, under the totality of the circumstances, that the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, a burden which is not overcome merely by fresh Miranda warnings or the suspect's reinitiation of contact if the reinitiation was prompted by the initial violation.
Facts:
- On January 5, 2014, an employee at the Stephanie Inn in Cannon Beach, Oregon, was robbed at gunpoint.
- Police identified Ernest Lee Dean as a suspect and arrested him on February 21, 2014, taking him to the Portland Justice Center for an interview.
- During the interview, after being read his Miranda rights, Detective Hawkinson read the arrest warrant aloud to Dean.
- In response, Dean unequivocally stated, 'I’ll need a lawyer before I can go any further with you.'
- Immediately after Dean's invocation, Detective Hawkinson proceeded to describe in detail the evidence against Dean, including items found during searches that connected him to several robberies.
- While listing the evidence, Hawkinson repeatedly told Dean not to respond and that he wanted Dean to understand why he was 'going to jail, and ultimately prison.'
- A few minutes after being placed in a holding cell, Dean knocked on the door and said he wanted to speak to the detective again.
- Dean was subsequently taken for a smoke break where he began making incriminating statements and eventually confessed to the Cannon Beach robbery.
Procedural Posture:
- Ernest Lee Dean was charged with robbery, kidnapping, and other crimes in Clatsop County Circuit Court, the trial court of first instance.
- Before trial, Dean filed a motion to suppress his incriminating statements, arguing they were obtained in violation of his right to counsel.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, Dean was convicted of first-degree robbery, second-degree kidnapping, and possession of a firearm as a felon.
- Dean, as Defendant-Appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals of Oregon, with the State of Oregon as Plaintiff-Respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's detailed recitation of incriminating evidence against a suspect, immediately after the suspect unequivocally invokes their right to counsel, constitute an interrogation that renders the suspect's subsequent, self-initiated waiver of that right invalid under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Shorr, J.
Yes. A police officer's detailed recitation of incriminating evidence after a suspect's invocation of the right to counsel constitutes interrogation, and under the totality of the circumstances, this violation rendered the defendant's subsequent waiver of his rights invalid. An officer's conduct is interrogation if it is 'likely to elicit some type of incriminating response.' Here, after Dean unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, Detective Hawkinson's detailed, unprompted summary of the evidence against him was not 'normally attendant to arrest' but was a form of interrogation designed to confront Dean with his guilt. This conduct was a 'clear and serious violation' of Dean's Article I, section 12, rights. This violation creates a presumption that any subsequent waiver is involuntary, placing a 'heavy burden' on the state. The state failed to meet this burden because the short time between the violation and Dean's reinitiation of contact, combined with the fact that the reinitiation was likely prompted by the improper interrogation, was not overcome by fresh Miranda warnings or a change in location. The coercive effect of the violation tainted the subsequent waiver, making the confession inadmissible.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength of Oregon's constitutional protections against self-incrimination, particularly the rule requiring all interrogation to cease upon an unequivocal request for counsel. It clarifies that confronting a suspect with detailed evidence post-invocation is a form of interrogation, not merely a permissible exchange of information. The case significantly heightens the state's burden to prove a subsequent waiver is valid after such a violation, scrutinizing the causal link between the police misconduct and the suspect's decision to talk. This precedent makes it more difficult for the prosecution to 'cure' a Miranda violation, even if the suspect re-initiates contact and receives fresh warnings, thus deterring police from using such tactics.
