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.
8 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 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 sentences2021Defendant relies on the rule, articulated in State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716 , 277 P3d 535 (2012), that, “because the failure to give Miranda warnings, when required, is itself a constitutional violation, the remedy for that violation extends not only to a defendant’s unwarned responses to an officer’s questions but also to the physical and testimonial evidence that is the product of that violation.” See also State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462, 476 , 236 P3d 691 (2010) (evidence obtained as the product of a Miranda violation applies to physical evidence). 2021Defendant relies on the rule, articulated in State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 716 , 277 P3d 535 (2012), that, “because the failure to give Miranda warnings, when required, is itself a constitutional violation, the remedy for that violation extends not only to a defendant’s unwarned responses to an officer’s questions but also to the physical and testimonial evidence that is the product of that violation.” See also State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462, 476 , 236 P3d 691 (2010) (evidence obtained as the product of a Miranda violation applies to physical evidence). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Moore/Coengreen2 sentences2015In that respect, Vondehn foreshadowed State v. Moore/Coen, 349 Or 371, 384 , 245 P3d 101 (2010), where, in a somewhat different context, the court again rejected a proposed analysis that would have distinguished between “actual coercion” and the failure to give Miranda warnings. 2015In that respect, Vondehn foreshadowed State v. Moore/Coen, 349 Or 371, 384 , 245 P3d 101 (2010), where, in a somewhat different context, the court again rejected a proposed analysis that would have distinguished between “actual coercion” and the failure to give Miranda warnings. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jarnagin
green
2 sentences2025Any evidence derived from the violation also must be suppressed: “[B]ecause the failure to give Miranda warnings, when required, is itself a constitutional violation, the remedy for that violation extends not only to a defendant’s unwarned responses to an officer’s questions but also to the physical and testimonial evidence that is the product of that violation.” Id. at 716 . 2025Any evidence derived from the violation also must be suppressed: “[B]ecause the failure to give Miranda warnings, when required, is itself a constitutional violation, the remedy for that violation extends not only to a defendant’s unwarned responses to an officer’s questions but also to the physical and testimonial evidence that is the product of that violation.” Id. at 716 . | 3 | 2021–2025 |
State v. Vu
green
2 sentences1990State v. Vu, 307 Or 419, 425 , 770 P2d 577 (1989), cites State v. Magee, supra, as the only pertinent case under the heading: “Failure to Give Miranda Warnings * * * Under the Oregon Constitution.” The court’s brief discussion assumes that the Oregon Constitution requires warnings: “We allowed review in this case primarily to determine, under the Oregon Constitution, the admissibility for impeachment purposes of a defendant’s statement once the statement had been suppressed because of a failure to give Miranda warnings. 1990State v. Vu, 307 Or 419, 425 , 770 P2d 577 (1989), cites State v. Magee, supra, as the only pertinent case under the heading: “Failure to Give Miranda Warnings * * * Under the Oregon Constitution.” The court’s brief discussion assumes that the Oregon Constitution requires warnings: “We allowed review in this case primarily to determine, under the Oregon Constitution, the admissibility for impeachment purposes of a defendant’s statement once the statement had been suppressed because of a failure to give Miranda warnings. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.