State v. Ford

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the officer’s repeated commands to divulge more information, coupled with his implications of guilt, gave the encounter coercive overtones”
• during traffic stop the defendant was not free to leave until he had been cited and his license was returned to him
• compelling cir- cumstances existed where, among other factors, officer “told defendant ‘five or six times’ that ‘we knew what was going on, we’d been talking to the [alleged victim], we knew, so I needed him to tell me the truth’ ”
• by “persistently pressur[ing] defendant for more information in ways that assumed defendant’s guilt,” an officer contributed to making the circumstances of an interrogation compelling
• An “officer’s repeated commands to divulge more information”—occur- ring five or six times—coupled with the officer’s implications of guilt gave the interview “coercive overtones.”
• An “offi- cer’s repeated commands to divulge more information”— occurring five or six times—coupled with the officer’s impli- cations of guilt gave the interview “coercive overtones.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Grimm
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-02-14· cited 17×
• State v. Phillips
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2020-03-04· cited 9×
• State v. Ford
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-09-08· cited 7×
• State v. Mattheisen
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-09-16· cited 7×
• State v. Nolen
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-06-26· cited 3×
• State v. Andrews
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2024-09-18