Does Oregon's conflicting statutes on search warrants provide the same level of constitutional safeguards for suspects in a criminal investigation?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Does Oregon's conflicting: statutes on search warrants that exist between ORS 133.545(5) which requires a fully trained police officer and ORS 167.345 which allows non-police officers provide the same level of constitutional safeguards “for suspects in a criminal investigation? 2. If a "confession" can be excluded for lack of "voluntariness" (Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568) or “unlawful police conduct" (Lynumn v. Illinois 372 U.S. 528), then can blank surrender forms with coerced signatures for personal property obtained by law enforcement during the execution of a search warrant during a criminal ; investigation be excluded as evidence as well? . 3. Can statements made while being deposed by an officer's attorney in which the officer is being sued in federal -court for civil rights violations be used as evidence by that officer and his attorney, if the plaintiff in that suit was not informed prior to questioning that the : attorney's clients, the officer and the county he was employed by, had obtained an Indictment and Arrest Warrant in state court five months earlier for the plaintiff in ; the federal case and the plaintiff was not informed of : the Indictment until another year had gone by and the federal case was dismissed and the plaintiff was arrested.