Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 181 (2026)
Delay in taking before magistrate not permitted
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The defendant must, in all cases, be taken before the magistrate without unnecessary delay. R.L.1910, § 5639.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1960–1998 · leading case: Dutton v. State, 674 P.2d 1134 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).
Dutton v. State, 674 P.2d 1134 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984). “The right to come before a magistrate without unnecessary delay is a statutory (22 O.S.1981, § 181), not a federal constitutional right.”
Darks v. State, 1998 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998). “Appellant cites 22 O.S.1991, § 181, which reads: “The defendant must, in all cases, be taken before the magistrate without necessary delay.”
Black v. State, 871 P.2d 35 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “Specifically, he cites 22 O.S.1981, § 181, which reads: "The defendant must, in all cases, be taken before the magistrate without unnecessary delay.”
Jenkins v. Chief Just. of the Dist. Court Dept., 619 N.E.2d 324 (Mass. 1993). “05 (1991); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 181 (1991); Or.”
Logan v. State, 493 P.2d 842 (Okla. Crim. App. 1972). “The first of four propositions contends the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated in that he was not taken before a magistrate “without unnecessary delay” as provided in 22 O.S.1961, § 181 : “The defendant must, in all cases, be taken before the magistrate without…”
Pickens v. State, 450 P.2d 837 (Okla. Crim. App. 1969). “In summary then, the state answers this contention of defendant by submitting first that the defendant was, from the testimony of Officer Stanfill, advised of the rights set out by the court’s decision in Miranda , and further the oral and written statements he did make and…”
Mosier v. State, 671 P.2d 62 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “Appellant cites 22 O.S.1981, § 181 which provides that “[t]he defendant must, in all cases, be taken before the magistrate without unnecessary delay.”
In Re Pate's Petition, 371 P.2d 500 (Okla. Crim. App. 1962). “The inquiry is as to truthfulness and reliability of a confession made, and delay in arraignment does not ipso facto vitiate a confession, but if there is a question of such delay having brought about confession, then jury may by proper instructions be required to consider…”
Application of Caudill, 352 P.2d 926 (Okla. Crim. App. 1960). “14 in the foregoing regard are in keeping with the general tenor of the law that one arrested, with or without a warrant, for a felony, must be taken before a magistrate without unnecessary delay, 22 O.S.1951 § 181, in the county where the arrest was made, to there be…”
Gasaway v. Page, 448 P.2d 284 (Okla. Crim. App. 1968). “Petitioner alleges that he was arrested on October 3, 1966, and that he was not taken before a magistrate until the following day, October 4, 1966. There is nothing in this delay to indicate the denial of substantial rights.”
Jenkins v. Chief Just. of the Dist. Court Dep't, 416 Mass. 221 (Mass. 1993). “05 (1991); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 181 (1991); Or.”
Luttrell v. Freeman, 444 P.2d 857 (Okla. Crim. App. 1968). “There has existed, as reflected in this case, some confusion over the term “arraignment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.