7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jarnagingreen2 sentences2020When a “defendant consent[s] to perform * * * field sobriety tests and * * * breath test[s], we look to the Jarnagin factors to determine whether defendant’s decision to perform those tests broke the causal chain between the prior Article I, section 12, violation and the test results.” Mast, 301 Or App at 820-21 (internal quotation marks omit- ted); see Jarnagin, 351 Or at 713 (When an officer obtains physical evidence in violation of Article I, section 12, the court suppresses “not only statements that a suspect makes in direct response to unwarned questioning but also evi- dence that derives 2015When an officer obtains evidence in violation of Article I, section 12, the court suppresses “not only statements that a suspect makes in direct response to unwarned questioning but also evidence that derives from or is a product of that constitutional violation.” State v. Jarnagin, 351 Or 703, 713 , 277 P3d 535 (2012). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Vondehngreen2 sentences2014Concomitantly, when police violate those duties, “we suppress not only the statements that a suspect makes in direct response” to unlawful interrogation, but also any evidence, physical or testimonial, “that derives from or is a product of that constitutional violation.” Jarnagin, 351 Or at 713, 715-16 (suppressing later obtained statements); see also State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462, 476 , 236 P3d 691 (2010) (suppressing later obtained physical evidence); cf. State v. McAnulty, 356 Or 432, 457-58 , 338 P3d 653 (2014) (suppressing statements obtained through continued interrogation after suspect i 2014Concomitantly, when police violate those duties, “we suppress not only the statements that a suspect makes in direct response” to unlawful interrogation, but also any evidence, physical or testimonial, “that derives from or is a product of that constitutional violation.” Jarnagin, 351 Or at 713, 715-16 (suppressing later obtained statements); see also State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462, 476 , 236 P3d 691 (2010) (suppressing later obtained physical evidence); cf. State v. McAnulty, 356 Or 432, 457-58 , 338 P3d 653 (2014) (suppressing statements obtained through continued interrogation after suspect i | 1 | 3 |
State v. Mastgreen1 sentence2020When a “defendant consent[s] to perform * * * field sobriety tests and * * * breath test[s], we look to the Jarnagin factors to determine whether defendant’s decision to perform those tests broke the causal chain between the prior Article I, section 12, violation and the test results.” Mast, 301 Or App at 820-21 (internal quotation marks omit- ted); see Jarnagin, 351 Or at 713 (When an officer obtains physical evidence in violation of Article I, section 12, the court suppresses “not only statements that a suspect makes in direct response to unwarned questioning but also evi- dence that derives | 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. Holcomb
green
1 sentence2018Further, it is well settled that, "[w]hen a suspect in police custody unequivocally invokes the right to remain silent or the right to counsel, all police interrogation must cease." State v. Holcomb , 213 Or. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Avila-Nava
green
2 sentences2018And, if police fail to give that warning, "a court must suppress not only the statements that a suspect makes in direct response to unwarned questioning but also evidence that derives from or is a product of that constitutional violation." State v. Avila-Nava , 356 Or. 600 , 608, 341 P.3d 714 (2014). 2018And, if police fail to give that warning, "a court must suppress not only the statements that a suspect makes in direct response to unwarned questioning but also evidence that derives from or is a product of that constitutional violation." State v. Avila-Nava , 356 Or. 600 , 608, 341 P.3d 714 (2014). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. McAnulty
green
2 sentences2014Concomitantly, when police violate those duties, “we suppress not only the statements that a suspect makes in direct response” to unlawful interrogation, but also any evidence, physical or testimonial, “that derives from or is a product of that constitutional violation.” Jarnagin, 351 Or at 713, 715-16 (suppressing later obtained statements); see also State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462, 476 , 236 P3d 691 (2010) (suppressing later obtained physical evidence); cf. State v. McAnulty, 356 Or 432, 457-58 , 338 P3d 653 (2014) (suppressing statements obtained through continued interrogation after suspect i 2014Concomitantly, when police violate those duties, “we suppress not only the statements that a suspect makes in direct response” to unlawful interrogation, but also any evidence, physical or testimonial, “that derives from or is a product of that constitutional violation.” Jarnagin, 351 Or at 713, 715-16 (suppressing later obtained statements); see also State v. Vondehn, 348 Or 462, 476 , 236 P3d 691 (2010) (suppressing later obtained physical evidence); cf. State v. McAnulty, 356 Or 432, 457-58 , 338 P3d 653 (2014) (suppressing statements obtained through continued interrogation after suspect i | 1 | 2014–2014 |