Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2/13/2002

State v. Cunningham

Citations

40 P.3d 535
179 Or. App. 498
2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 170

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that an officer’s question about weapons prior to a patdown search was motivated by safety concerns and therefore did not require Miranda warnings
holding that a question whether the arrestee had anything sharp or that would otherwise hurt the arresting officer “served a noncriminal, noninvestigatory purpose” and, thus, fell within the exception to Miranda for questioning normally attendant to arrest and custody
noting that Oregon has adopted that definition of “interrogation” for purposes of Article I, section 12
explaining that the federal definition of interrogation, which this court adopted for the purposes of Article I, section 12, contains an exception for questions “normally attendant to arrest and custody”
explaining that the federal definition of interrogation, which this court adopted for the purposes of Article I, section 12, contains an exception for questions “normally attendant to arrest and custody”
explaining that the federal definition of interrogation, which this court adopted for the purposes of Article I, section 12, contains an exception for questions “normally attendant to arrest and custody”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Edmonds, Armstrong, Kistler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.