Miranda warnings required even when no verbal or physical arrest under some circumstances:
Remember practitioners, it doesn’t necessarily require direct verbal or physical indications of arrest in order to require Miranda before taking statements from a suspect defendant. In State v. McMillan, 184 Or App 63, 68 (2003), the defendant made incriminating responses immediately after the officer had confronted him with a significant amount of evidence regarding his criminal behavior. The court held: “Although the officer’s unarticulated suspicions do not result in compelling circumstances, expressly confronting a suspect with evidence of probable cause to arrest may make circumstances sufficiently compelling to require Miranda warnings.” See also State v. Rose and the federal case of U.S. v. Spurk, 205 US Dist. LEXIS, 39950 (D. Or. 205):
“I find that Spurk was in custody after she admitted the backpack was hers and [police officer] Rose continued to question her. The officers never asked Spurk if she minded talking to them, and their questions went beyond threshold questions such as questions to ascertain her identity and purpose for being in the area. Instead, Rose never left Spurk’s side and repeatedly confronted her with the information provided by the witness, questioning her for approximately 20 minutes. This was not a situation where Rose’s single question or two elicited an incriminating statement from Spurk, nor is this a situation where Rose limited his questioning to her reasons for being in the area. The questioning was of the sort that would make Spurk feel that she was going to be held for a prolonged period of time. Furthermore, Spurk watched Shook [another officer] arrest Johnson in front of her. A reasonable person would not have felt free to leave.”
The court went on to hold that Miranda warnings were required.