voluntary waiver in Oregon

2017Boyd , 360 Or. at 318 , 380 P.3d 941 . *608 Lastly, when we determine whether a defendant's reinitiation of conversation indicates a true voluntary waiver of the right against self-incrimination, as opposed to simply being the product of a police-dominated atmosphere, this court considers such "relevant factors * * * includ [ing] the nature of the initial [invocation and] violation, the amount of time between the violation and the [suspect's] later statements, whether the [suspect] remained in custody between the violation and the later statements, and whether there was a change in time and ci

2017Boyd , 360 Or. at 318 , 380 P.3d 941 . *608 Lastly, when we determine whether a defendant's reinitiation of conversation indicates a true voluntary waiver of the right against self-incrimination, as opposed to simply being the product of a police-dominated atmosphere, this court considers such "relevant factors * * * includ [ing] the nature of the initial [invocation and] violation, the amount of time between the violation and the [suspect's] later statements, whether the [suspect] remained in custody between the violation and the later statements, and whether there was a change in time and ci

2015Jarnagin, 351 396 State v. Delong Or at 716; Vondehn, 348 Or at 476 ; see State v. Joslin, 332 Or 373, 386 , 29 P3d 1112 (2001) (holding that defendant’s waiver of Article I, section 12, rights, “although voluntary, was not knowingly made and, therefore, was invalid”).

2015Jarnagin, 351 Or at 716 ; Vondehn, 348 Or at 476 ; see State v. Joslin, 332 Or 373, 386 , 29 P3d 1112 (2001) (holding that defendant’s waiver of Article I, section 12, rights, “although voluntary, was not knowingly made and, therefore, was invalid”).

2025As explained above, to establish a voluntary waiver the state was required to demonstrate both a “suspect initi- ated dialog” with law enforcement for a “generalized discus- sion about the investigation” and a knowing, voluntary, and 7 Although talking to a suspect about routine booking matters after an unequivocal invocation can be permissible, Fink, 285 Or App at 307 , that is not what Durr did. 8 Indeed, the conduct of the first two officers supports this conclusion.

2017Boyd , 360 Or. at 318 , 380 P.3d 941 . *608 Lastly, when we determine whether a defendant's reinitiation of conversation indicates a true voluntary waiver of the right against self-incrimination, as opposed to simply being the product of a police-dominated atmosphere, this court considers such "relevant factors * * * includ [ing] the nature of the initial [invocation and] violation, the amount of time between the violation and the [suspect's] later statements, whether the [suspect] remained in custody between the violation and the later statements, and whether there was a change in time and ci

2017Boyd , 360 Or. at 318 , 380 P.3d 941 . *608 Lastly, when we determine whether a defendant's reinitiation of conversation indicates a true voluntary waiver of the right against self-incrimination, as opposed to simply being the product of a police-dominated atmosphere, this court considers such "relevant factors * * * includ [ing] the nature of the initial [invocation and] violation, the amount of time between the violation and the [suspect's] later statements, whether the [suspect] remained in custody between the violation and the later statements, and whether there was a change in time and ci

2017Boyd , 360 Or. at 318 , 380 P.3d 941 . *608 Lastly, when we determine whether a defendant's reinitiation of conversation indicates a true voluntary waiver of the right against self-incrimination, as opposed to simply being the product of a police-dominated atmosphere, this court considers such "relevant factors * * * includ [ing] the nature of the initial [invocation and] violation, the amount of time between the violation and the [suspect's] later statements, whether the [suspect] remained in custody between the violation and the later statements, and whether there was a change in time and ci

2017Boyd , 360 Or. at 318 , 380 P.3d 941 . *608 Lastly, when we determine whether a defendant's reinitiation of conversation indicates a true voluntary waiver of the right against self-incrimination, as opposed to simply being the product of a police-dominated atmosphere, this court considers such "relevant factors * * * includ [ing] the nature of the initial [invocation and] violation, the amount of time between the violation and the [suspect's] later statements, whether the [suspect] remained in custody between the violation and the later statements, and whether there was a change in time and ci

2015The Supreme Court has previously observed that “officers may request permission to inspect or search one’s effects, and consent, particularly when granted after being informed of one’s right to decline, as in this case, could be a voluntary waiver of a known right.” Williamson, 307 Or at 626 .

2012The Court held that the belated Miranda warnings were sufficient in that case to ensure a voluntary waiver of the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights. [14] In Bobby , the police questioned the defendant for more than two hours after they arrested him without advising him of his Miranda rights. 132 S.Ct. at 28 .

2012In Bobby , the police questioned the defendant for more than two hours after they arrested him without advising him of his Miranda rights. 132 S Ct at 28 .

2001Barrett and Barrett, 320 Or 372 , 886 P2d 1 (1994).

2001Barrett and Barrett, 320 Or 372 , 886 P2d 1 (1994).

1986ORS 743.660 provides that all fire insurance policies contain this provision: “No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this policy shall have been complied with.” See Marcotte v. Farmers Insurance Co., 66 Or App 928 , 675 P2d 1118 , rev den 297 Or 83 (1984); Director v. So.

1986ORS 743.660 provides that all fire insurance policies contain this provision: “No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this policy shall have been complied with.” See Marcotte v. Farmers Insurance Co., 66 Or App 928 , 675 P2d 1118 , rev den 297 Or 83 (1984); Director v. So.

1986State v. Kell, 77 Or.App. 199 , 712 P.2d 827 , rev. pending (1986).

1986State v. Kell, 77 Or.App. 199 , 712 P.2d 827 , rev. pending (1986).

1985The dissenters in Boykin appraised the effect of the decision as follows: “The Court thus in effect fastens upon the States, as a matter of federal constitutional law, the rigid prophylactic requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” 395 US at 245 , 89 S Ct at 1713, 23 L Ed 2d at 280 .

1985The dissenters in Boykin appraised the effect of the decision as follows: “The Court thus in effect fastens upon the States, as a matter of federal constitutional law, the rigid prophylactic requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” 395 US at 245 , 89 S Ct at 1713, 23 L Ed 2d at 280 .

1979Where the defendant has been read his rights, "voluntariness then becomes a question of fact.” State v. Atherton, 242 Or 621, 627 , 410 P2d 208 (1966).

1979Where the defendant has been read his rights, "voluntariness then becomes a question of fact.” State v. Atherton, 242 Or 621, 627 , 410 P2d 208 (1966).