Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2024–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2026State v. Davis, 350 Or 440, 459 , 256 P3d 1075 (2011) (“[T]he court has never held that an indi- vidual’s invocation of a right to remain silent in the absence of custody or other compelling circumstances precludes police from attempting to obtain incriminating informa- tion from that individual.”); see also State v. Miller, 336 Or App 606, 608 , 561 P3d 675 (2024), aff’d, 373 Or 173 , ___ P3d ___ (2026) (concluding that in a situation where Miranda warnings were not required, the officer was “likewise not required to obtain a waiver of the rights enumerated in those warnings”). 2026State v. Davis, 350 Or 440, 459 , 256 P3d 1075 (2011) (“[T]he court has never held that an indi- vidual’s invocation of a right to remain silent in the absence of custody or other compelling circumstances precludes police from attempting to obtain incriminating informa- tion from that individual.”); see also State v. Miller, 336 Or App 606, 608 , 561 P3d 675 (2024), aff’d, 373 Or 173 , ___ P3d ___ (2026) (concluding that in a situation where Miranda warnings were not required, the officer was “likewise not required to obtain a waiver of the rights enumerated in those warnings”). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2026State v. Davis, 350 Or 440, 459 , 256 P3d 1075 (2011) (“[T]he court has never held that an indi- vidual’s invocation of a right to remain silent in the absence of custody or other compelling circumstances precludes police from attempting to obtain incriminating informa- tion from that individual.”); see also State v. Miller, 336 Or App 606, 608 , 561 P3d 675 (2024), aff’d, 373 Or 173 , ___ P3d ___ (2026) (concluding that in a situation where Miranda warnings were not required, the officer was “likewise not required to obtain a waiver of the rights enumerated in those warnings”). 2026State v. Davis, 350 Or 440, 459 , 256 P3d 1075 (2011) (“[T]he court has never held that an indi- vidual’s invocation of a right to remain silent in the absence of custody or other compelling circumstances precludes police from attempting to obtain incriminating informa- tion from that individual.”); see also State v. Miller, 336 Or App 606, 608 , 561 P3d 675 (2024), aff’d, 373 Or 173 , ___ P3d ___ (2026) (concluding that in a situation where Miranda warnings were not required, the officer was “likewise not required to obtain a waiver of the rights enumerated in those warnings”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Clem
green
2 sentences2024Whether a situation is compelling is determined by “how a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation.” State v. Clem, 136 Or App 37, 42 , 900 P2d 1064 (1995). 2024Whether a situation is compelling is determined by “how a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation.” State v. Clem, 136 Or App 37, 42 , 900 P2d 1064 (1995). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.