Opinion · Court of Appeals of Oregon
State v. Olson
83 Or. App. 516
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Oregon
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
- Date
- 1987-01-28
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- suppression reversed where trial court held that the defendant must be advised that he may terminate questioning at any time, because such a warning exceeds Miranda requirements and full Miranda warnings were given
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Olson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 4 opinions
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.