federal Miranda warning (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

federal Miranda warning in Oregon

9 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2007 0 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Sparklingreen
or · 1983 · cited in 7 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1986–1999
2 sentences

1999See State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 89 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983) (at least as long as the text of the federal Miranda warnings remains the law, the convenience of a single text exceeds any gain from improving that text); 3 State v. Olson, *407 83 Or App 516 , 731 P2d 1072 (1987) (suppression reversed where trial court held that the defendant must be advised that he may terminate questioning at any time, because such a warning exceeds Miranda requirements and full Miranda warnings were given).

1999See State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 89 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983) (at least as long as the text of the federal Miranda warnings remains the law, the convenience of a single text exceeds any gain from improving that text); 3 State v. Olson, *407 83 Or App 516 , 731 P2d 1072 (1987) (suppression reversed where trial court held that the defendant must be advised that he may terminate questioning at any time, because such a warning exceeds Miranda requirements and full Miranda warnings were given).

17
Oregon v. Mathiasongreen
scotus · 1977 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1986–2007
2 sentences

2007See Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 US 492 , 97 S Ct 711 , 50 L Ed 2d 714 (1977) (reasoning that false statement that officer had found suspect’s fingerprints at the crime scene did not *649 mean that the suspect was in custody for the purposes of the federal Miranda requirement). 8 The defendant performed poorly on a balance test and failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. 324 Or at 491 .

2007See Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 US 492 , 97 S Ct 711 , 50 L Ed 2d 714 (1977) (reasoning that false statement that officer had found suspect’s fingerprints at the crime scene did not *649 mean that the suspect was in custody for the purposes of the federal Miranda requirement). 8 The defendant performed poorly on a balance test and failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. 324 Or at 491 .

12
State v. Mainsgreen
or · 1983 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1983–1986
2 sentences

1983In Neely these warnings were perceived as a federal constitutional requirement in response to Massiah v. United States, 377 US 201 , 84 S Ct 1199 , 12 LEd 2d 246 (1964) and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 , 84 S Ct 1758 , 12 LEd 2d 977 (1964) and we did not examine the state constitutional guarantee. 4 Recently in State v. Mains, 295 Or 640 , 669 P2d 1112 (1983), after examining the federal Miranda warnings, we stated: “The Oregon Constitution similarily guarantees the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal prosecution.

1983In Neely these warnings were perceived as a federal constitutional requirement in response to Massiah v. United States, 377 US 201 , 84 S Ct 1199 , 12 LEd 2d 246 (1964) and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 , 84 S Ct 1758 , 12 LEd 2d 977 (1964) and we did not examine the state constitutional guarantee. 4 Recently in State v. Mains, 295 Or 640 , 669 P2d 1112 (1983), after examining the federal Miranda warnings, we stated: “The Oregon Constitution similarily guarantees the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal prosecution.

12
State v. Prickettgreen
or · 1997 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007See Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 US 492 , 97 S Ct 711 , 50 L Ed 2d 714 (1977) (reasoning that false statement that officer had found suspect’s fingerprints at the crime scene did not *649 mean that the suspect was in custody for the purposes of the federal Miranda requirement). 8 The defendant performed poorly on a balance test and failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. 324 Or at 491 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Olson green
orctapp · 1987
2 sentences

1999See State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 89 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983) (at least as long as the text of the federal Miranda warnings remains the law, the convenience of a single text exceeds any gain from improving that text); 3 State v. Olson, *407 83 Or App 516 , 731 P2d 1072 (1987) (suppression reversed where trial court held that the defendant must be advised that he may terminate questioning at any time, because such a warning exceeds Miranda requirements and full Miranda warnings were given).

1999See State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 89 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983) (at least as long as the text of the federal Miranda warnings remains the law, the convenience of a single text exceeds any gain from improving that text); 3 State v. Olson, *407 83 Or App 516 , 731 P2d 1072 (1987) (suppression reversed where trial court held that the defendant must be advised that he may terminate questioning at any time, because such a warning exceeds Miranda requirements and full Miranda warnings were given).

11999–1999
Miranda v. Arizona green
scotus · 1966
2 sentences

1992In Miranda, supra, the Supreme Court held: "[A]n individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation. * * * [T]his warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. * * * "* * * * * "[I]t is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him." 384 U.S. at 473 , 86 S.Ct. at 1627 .

1992In Miranda, supra, the Supreme Court held: "[A]n individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation. * * * [T]his warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. * * * "* * * * * "[I]t is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him." 384 U.S. at 473 , 86 S.Ct. at 1627 .

11992–1992
California v. Prysock green
scotus · 1981
2 sentences

1992Indeed, "no talismanic incantation [is] required to satisfy its strictures." California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359 , 101 S.Ct. 2806, 2809 , 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981).

1992Indeed, "no talismanic incantation [is] required to satisfy its strictures." California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359 , 101 S.Ct. 2806, 2809 , 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981).

11992–1992
State v. Kell green
orctapp · 1986
2 sentences

1986In State v. Kell, 77 Or App 199 , 712 P2d 827 , rev pending (1986), we held that Miranda warnings are required under the Oregon Constitution before custodial interrogation. *804 We did so because of the requirement in State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 89 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983), that the police “inform a detained person that he may terminate questioning at any time and that he may have an attorney to advise him before he speaks” and because of the Supreme Court’s statement, in that case, that it would not require warnings in addition to the Miranda warnings “[a]t least as long as the text of the fed

1986In State v. Kell, 77 Or App 199 , 712 P2d 827 , rev pending (1986), we held that Miranda warnings are required under the Oregon Constitution before custodial interrogation. *804 We did so because of the requirement in State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 89 , 672 P2d 1182 (1983), that the police “inform a detained person that he may terminate questioning at any time and that he may have an attorney to advise him before he speaks” and because of the Supreme Court’s statement, in that case, that it would not require warnings in addition to the Miranda warnings “[a]t least as long as the text of the fed

11986–1986
Massiah v. United States green
scotus · 1964
2 sentences

1983In Neely these warnings were perceived as a federal constitutional requirement in response to Massiah v. United States, 377 US 201 , 84 S Ct 1199 , 12 LEd 2d 246 (1964) and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 , 84 S Ct 1758 , 12 LEd 2d 977 (1964) and we did not examine the state constitutional guarantee. 4 Recently in State v. Mains, 295 Or 640 , 669 P2d 1112 (1983), after examining the federal Miranda warnings, we stated: “The Oregon Constitution similarily guarantees the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal prosecution.

1983In Neely these warnings were perceived as a federal constitutional requirement in response to Massiah v. United States, 377 US 201 , 84 S Ct 1199 , 12 LEd 2d 246 (1964) and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 , 84 S Ct 1758 , 12 LEd 2d 977 (1964) and we did not examine the state constitutional guarantee. 4 Recently in State v. Mains, 295 Or 640 , 669 P2d 1112 (1983), after examining the federal Miranda warnings, we stated: “The Oregon Constitution similarily guarantees the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal prosecution.

11983–1983
Escobedo v. Illinois green
scotus · 1964
2 sentences

1983In Neely these warnings were perceived as a federal constitutional requirement in response to Massiah v. United States, 377 US 201 , 84 S Ct 1199 , 12 LEd 2d 246 (1964) and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 , 84 S Ct 1758 , 12 LEd 2d 977 (1964) and we did not examine the state constitutional guarantee. 4 Recently in State v. Mains, 295 Or 640 , 669 P2d 1112 (1983), after examining the federal Miranda warnings, we stated: “The Oregon Constitution similarily guarantees the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal prosecution.

1983In Neely these warnings were perceived as a federal constitutional requirement in response to Massiah v. United States, 377 US 201 , 84 S Ct 1199 , 12 LEd 2d 246 (1964) and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US 478 , 84 S Ct 1758 , 12 LEd 2d 977 (1964) and we did not examine the state constitutional guarantee. 4 Recently in State v. Mains, 295 Or 640 , 669 P2d 1112 (1983), after examining the federal Miranda warnings, we stated: “The Oregon Constitution similarily guarantees the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal prosecution.

11983–1983

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check