Court of Appeals of Oregon· 12/3/2014

State v. Koch

Citations

267 Or. App. 322
341 P.3d 112
2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1662

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 violation was “flagrant” where the officer subjected the defendant to custodial interrogation by “repeatedly” questioning him after he had invoked his right to counsel
concluding that the violation was \flagrant\ where the officer subjected the defendant to custodial interrogation by \repeatedly\ questioning the defendant using a drug recognition evaluation after the defendant had requested to speak with an attorney
concluding that “the circumstances * * * mil- itate * * * in favor of suppression” because the “defendant was under compelling circumstances within 15 minutes of the initial encounter and was under arrest when he gave the urine sample”
suppressing statements made and evidence obtained following suspect’s invocation of right to counsel when police use of statements was “inextrica- bly intertwined” with investigation
suppressing statements made and evidence obtained following suspect’s invocation of right to counsel when police use of statements was “inextrica- bly intertwined” with investigation
officers flagrantly violated Miranda by continuing to question a defendant after the defendant unequivocally invoked his right to counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Duncan, Haselton, Wollheim

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by 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.