11 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 3 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. Vondehngreen2 sentences2025E.g., State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462, 475-76 , 236 P3d 691 (2010) (“When the police violate Article I, section 12, whether that violation consists of ‘actual coercion’ or the failure to give the warn- ings necessary to a knowing and voluntary waiver, the state is precluded from using evidence derived from that viola- tion to obtain a criminal conviction.”); Roble-Baker, 340 Or at 643-44 (suppressing in subsequent criminal prosecution unwarned statements made during custodial interrogation). “[T]he Oregon Constitution does not require the exclusion of evidence obtained in the absence of Miranda w 2025E.g., State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462, 475-76 , 236 P3d 691 (2010) (“When the police violate Article I, section 12, whether that violation consists of ‘actual coercion’ or the failure to give the warn- ings necessary to a knowing and voluntary waiver, the state is precluded from using evidence derived from that viola- tion to obtain a criminal conviction.”); Roble-Baker, 340 Or at 643-44 (suppressing in subsequent criminal prosecution unwarned statements made during custodial interrogation). “[T]he Oregon Constitution does not require the exclusion of evidence obtained in the absence of Miranda w | 1 | 2 |
State v. Roble-Bakergreen1 sentence2025E.g., State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462, 475-76 , 236 P3d 691 (2010) (“When the police violate Article I, section 12, whether that violation consists of ‘actual coercion’ or the failure to give the warn- ings necessary to a knowing and voluntary waiver, the state is precluded from using evidence derived from that viola- tion to obtain a criminal conviction.”); Roble-Baker, 340 Or at 643-44 (suppressing in subsequent criminal prosecution unwarned statements made during custodial interrogation). “[T]he Oregon Constitution does not require the exclusion of evidence obtained in the absence of Miranda w | 1 | 1 |
State v. Finonengreen2 sentences2016See State v. Finonen, 272 Or App 589 , 591 n 2, 356 P3d 656 (2015) (“Any distinction between statements made in the absence of Miranda warnings and statements made absent the defendant’s understanding of those warnings is not material to the Article I, section 12, analysis. 2016See State v. Finonen, 272 Or App 589 , 591 n 2, 356 P3d 656 (2015) (“Any distinction between statements made in the absence of Miranda warnings and statements made absent the defendant’s understanding of those warnings is not material to the Article I, section 12, analysis. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Haynesgreen1 sentence2011See Haynes, 288 Or at 71 (requiring evidence that the defendant was aware not only of the right to counsel generally but also of the benefit of counsel’s assistance in “forestalling] involuntary and incriminating disclosures”). 5 We need not decide in this case whether Miranda warnings are always required when a defendant whose Article I, section 11, right to counsel has attached initiates a discussion with officers about the charged crimes; that is, we need not decide whether a trial court could find, in the absence of Miranda warnings, that a defendant was aware of the right to counsel and t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sparklingreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Sparklin 296 Or at 89 ; Rowe, 79 Or App at 805 . 14 The purpose of those warnings is to limit the inherent coerciveness of custodial interrogation by making it more likely that any statements that it produces will be the result of the person’s free choice. | 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. Rose
green
2 sentences2025State v. Rose, 296 Or App 99, 108 , 437 P3d 1144 (2019) (con- cluding that a trial court committed reversible error in not suppressing state- ments made after the defendant’s equivocal invocation when “detectives failed to clarify [the] defendant’s statement before proceeding further”). 3 Typically, when determining whether circumstances are compelling, it is due to the absence of Miranda warnings when police interrogate a suspect. 2025State v. Rose, 296 Or App 99, 108 , 437 P3d 1144 (2019) (con- cluding that a trial court committed reversible error in not suppressing state- ments made after the defendant’s equivocal invocation when “detectives failed to clarify [the] defendant’s statement before proceeding further”). 3 Typically, when determining whether circumstances are compelling, it is due to the absence of Miranda warnings when police interrogate a suspect. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Moran
neutral
1 sentence2025The Oregon Constitution requires Miranda warnings to ensure that a waiver of the Cite as 341 Or App 309 (2025) 313 rights conferred by Article I, section 12, is knowing as well as voluntary.” Vondehn, 348 Or at 480 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Simon
green
1 sentence2019It is defendant's burden, as the party seeking reversal based on a claim of evidentiary error, "to show some *571 likelihood that the challenged evidence affected the verdict." Simon , 294 Or. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Rowe
green
1 sentence2008See, e.g., Sparklin 296 Or at 89 ; Rowe, 79 Or App at 805 . 14 The purpose of those warnings is to limit the inherent coerciveness of custodial interrogation by making it more likely that any statements that it produces will be the result of the person’s free choice. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Fish
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 63 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Fields
green
2 sentences1982Instead, he frames this appeal as “solely a question of law.” 4 The Oregon Supreme Court held in State v. Fields, 291 Or 872 , 635 P2d 376 (1981), that the defendant was not in custody, so the absence of Miranda warnings did not make his confession inadmissible in his trial for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. 1982Instead, he frames this appeal as “solely a question of law.” 4 The Oregon Supreme Court held in State v. Fields, 291 Or 872 , 635 P2d 376 (1981), that the defendant was not in custody, so the absence of Miranda warnings did not make his confession inadmissible in his trial for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1981Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 1981Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 , 86 S Ct 1602 , 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.