Oregon v. Elstad

• Article

• Talk

Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), is a landmark Supreme Court of the United States case relating to _Miranda _ warnings.[1]

Contents

• 1 Background

• 2 Case

• 3 Subsequent Developments

• 4 Further reading

• 5 References

• 6 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon_v._Elstad&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

A house in the town of Salem , Polk County (most of Salem is located in Marion County ), Oregon was burglarized. A witness to the burglary contacted the local sheriff's office and implicated an 18 year old neighbor, Michael Elstad. Two officers went to Elstad's home with a warrant for his arrest. When the police entered the house and asked Elstad about the burglary he admitted to the burglary. The officers then escorted Elstad to the sheriff's headquarters. About an hour later, the same officers began interrogating Elstad by reading him his Miranda rights for the first time. During this interrogation, the officers obtained a written admission of Elstad's involvement in the burglary. Subsequently, Elstad was convicted of burglary and sentenced to 5 years and $18,000 in restitution.[2]

Case

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon_v._Elstad&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Case")

The issue presented was whether the self-incrimination clause of the 5th Amendment requires suppression of a confession made after Miranda warnings and a waiver, because police obtained an earlier admission without Miranda warnings.[2]

Justice O'Connor , writing for the majority, held that, while the pre-Miranda statements must be suppressed, the statements made after Miranda do not need to be suppressed as long as the statements were made knowingly and voluntarily.[3]

Subsequent Developments

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon_v._Elstad&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Subsequent Developments")

In Missouri v. Seibert the police practice was to obtain a confession from suspects, then Mirandize the suspects and obtain a "valid" confession. Missouri developed this practice as a result of the holding in Oregon v. Elstad. The Supreme Court condemned this practice and suppressed the statements.[4]

Further reading

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon_v._Elstad&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Further reading")

• Brooks, Peter (2005). "The Future of Confession". Law, Culture and the Humanities. 1 (1): 53–74. doi :10.1191/1743872105lw005oa . S2CID  145543657 .

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon_v._Elstad&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: References")

1. ↑ "Landmark Supreme Court Cases | Beyond Miranda: Case Decisions" . Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Retrieved December 8, 2019.
2. 1 2 Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985).
3. ↑ Bassi, Marte (1986). "Restricting the Miranda Presumption and Pruning the Poisonous Tree: Oregon v. Elstad" . Golden Gate University Law Review. 16 (2): 331–348.
4. ↑ _Missouri v. Seibert _, 542 U.S. 600 (2004).; Moreno, Joelle (2005). "Faith-Based Miranda: Why the New Missouri v. Seibert Police Bad Faith Test Is a Terrible Idea" . Arizona Law Review. 47 (1): 395–418.

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon_v._Elstad&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: External links")

• Text of Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) is available from: Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oregon_v._Elstad&oldid=1361059506 "