- Court: Oregon Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 12-12-2013
- Case #: S060134
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Balmer, C.J. for the Court; En Banc
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant was charged with criminally negligent homicide after he allegedly drove while under the influence of intoxicants and struck another vehicle, killing one of its occupants. An officer witnessed the vehicle, driven by Defendant, cross the centerline of a highway and collide with an oncoming vehicle. The officer spoke with Defendant and determined that he had probable cause to arrest him for DUII. The officer provided Miranda warnings and also advised Defendant of his rights under Oregon's implied consent law and the adverse consequences of refusing to provide samples. Defendant consented and gave a sample of blood and urine. The trial court suppressed the blood and urine samples finding that the consent was involuntary. The Court looked at the totality of the circumstances to determine if the consent was voluntary. The disclosure of information about any penalties the State may impose is not constitutionally coercive. Advising a defendant of the lawful consequences that flow from his or her decision to engage in behavior ensures that the defendant makes an informed choice. Here, the Court held that a police officer does not coerce a defendant into submitting to the statutorily required tests when the officer gives the defendant accurate information about the lawful adverse consequences that might result from a refusal. Reversed and remanded.