State v. Olson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Olson

731 P.2d 1072, 83 Or. App. 516, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 2852

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 28, 1987

DocketCR5-1106-20; CA A40159

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 731 P.2d 1072 (State v. Olson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Olson, 731 P.2d 1072, 83 Or. App. 516, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 2852 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

*517 PER CURIAM

The sole issue in this case is whether a defendant who is in full custody has a right under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, to be given, not only the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 86 S Ct 1602, 16 L Ed2d 694 (1966), but also to be advised that he may terminate questioning at any time.

In State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 672 P2d 1182 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the Oregon Constitution does not require warnings beyond those required by Miranda and held that, “as long as the text of the federal Miranda warnings remains the law, we think that the convenience of a single text exceeds any gain from improving that text.” 296 Or at 89. The court’s statement that it requires the police “to inform a detained person that he may terminate questioning at any time” is dictum and is not the law of this state. See State v. Smith, 301 Or 681, 696 n 10, 725 P2d 894 (1986). Because the trial court suppressed defendant’s statements, made after he was advised of his rights in compliance with Miranda, we reverse and remand for trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*517 PER CURIAM

The sole issue in this case is whether a defendant who is in full custody has a right under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, to be given, not only the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 86 S Ct 1602, 16 L Ed2d 694 (1966), but also to be advised that he may terminate questioning at any time.

In State v. Sparklin, 296 Or 85, 672 P2d 1182 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the Oregon Constitution does not require warnings beyond those required by Miranda and held that, “as long as the text of the federal Miranda warnings remains the law, we think that the convenience of a single text exceeds any gain from improving that text.” 296 Or at 89. The court’s statement that it requires the police “to inform a detained person that he may terminate questioning at any time” is dictum and is not the law of this state. See State v. Smith, 301 Or 681, 696 n 10, 725 P2d 894 (1986). Because the trial court suppressed defendant’s statements, made after he was advised of his rights in compliance with Miranda, we reverse and remand for trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

731 P.2d 1072, 83 Or. App. 516, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 2852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-olson-orctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack