State v. Yaeger

Under Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment, persons on Post Prison Supervision (PPS) maintain the right against self-incrimination; under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment, a person on PPS who “invokes a constitutional right” may be subject to a PPS violation, “but that does not obviate any constitutional right” to voluntary consent standards.

Defendant appealed a conviction of second-degree encouraging child sex abuse and unlawful contact with a child. Defendant was under post-prison supervision (PPS) when she was arrested and charged on these counts. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argued the evidence should have been excluded as there was no Miranda warnings, and she did not consent to any search. The state contended that she had “limited constitutional rights”, and the search was a valid under the terms of her PPS. Under Article I, section 12 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment, persons on PPS maintain the right against self-incrimination; under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment, a person on PPS who “invokes a constitutional right” may be subject to a PPS violation, “but that does not obviate any constitutional right” to voluntary consent standards. The Court held that defendant was entitled to constitutional protections because warnings are required when a “defendant is in full custody or another setting that judges would and officers should recognize to be compelling.”  The court additionally held it is not a requirement for those under PPS to “submit to the demands of PPS officers,” and, when evaluating consent, if the person being asked to consent is left “with the impression that a search is inevitable” it is “acquiescence rather than consent.” Thus, under the circumstances, PPS officers had to advise defendant of her Miranda rights. Reversed and remanded.