Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Oregon Vs. Elstad

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 04, 1985

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

68 entries 12 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Chambers Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1940
  2. Haynes Vs. Washington US Supreme Court · May 27, 1963
  3. Rhode Island Vs. Innis US Supreme Court · May 12, 1980
  4. Oregon Vs. Mathiason US Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1977
  5. Miranda Vs. Arizona US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1966
  6. Michigan Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1974
  7. United States Vs. Ceccolini US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978
  8. Clewis Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1967
  9. Mcmann Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · May 04, 1970
  10. United States Vs. Bayer US Supreme Court · Jun 09, 1947
  11. New York Vs. Quarles US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1984
  12. Frazier Vs. Cupp US Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1969
  13. U.S. 298 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. Elstad
    Search
  14. U.S. 298 (1985) Oregon v. Elstad
    Search
  15. a suspect in a burglary, he made an incriminating statement without having been given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  16. us to decide whether an initial failure of law enforcement officers to administer the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  17. citing United States v. Bayer
    Search
  18. citing Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  19. within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Haynes v. Washington
    Search
  20. by the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment, of course, is not concerned with nontestimonial evidence. See Schmerber v. California
    Search
  21. and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion. See, e.g., California v. Beheler
    Search
  22. United States v. Washington
    Search
  23. U. S. 181 , 431 U. S. 187 (1977). As the Court noted last Term in New York v. Quarles
    Search
  24. protected.' Michigan v. Tucker
    Search
  25. Edwards v. Arizona
    Search
  26. assumes the existence of a constitutional violation. This figure of speech is drawn from Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  27. Taylor v. Alabama
    Search
  28. U. S. 687 , 457 U. S. 690 (1982) (quoting Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  29. Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is to deter unreasonable searches, no matter how probative their fruits. Dunaway v. New
    Search
  30. Brown v. Illinois
    Search
  31. Amendment is merely a threshold requirement in determining whether the confession may be admitted in evidence. Taylor v. Alabama
    Search
  32. medicine provides a remedy even to the defendant who has suffered no identifiable constitutional harm. See New York v. Quarles
    Search
  33. s case, the presumption of coercion does not bar their use for impeachment purposes on cross-examination. Harris v. New
    Search
  34. Schulhofer, Confessions and the Court, 79 Mich.L.Rev. 865, 877 (1981). In Michigan v. Tucker
    Search
  35. U. S. 268 , 435 U. S. 277 (1978) (emphasis added) (quoting from Smith v. United
    Search
  36. or his freedom has otherwise been significantly restrained. Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  37. of the interrogators all bear on whether that coercion has carried over into the second confession. See Westover v. United
    Search
  38. States, decided together with Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  39. will presume the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination has not been intelligently exercised. See New York v. Quarles
    Search
  40. Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  41. U.S. at 331 U. S. 540 -541. Even in such extreme cases as Lyons v. Oklahoma
    Search
  42. the coercive effect of the confession Page 470 U. S. 312 could, with time, be dissipated. See also Westover v. United
    Search
  43. desirable protection to the individual's interest in not being compelled to testify against himself. Cf. Michigan v. Mosley
    Search
  44. Dunaway v. New
    Search
  45. s mother. Whatever the reason for Burke's oversight, the incident had none of the earmarks of coercion. See Rawlings v. Kentucky
    Search
  46. long after full Miranda warnings are administered and a valid confession obtained. See, e.g., United States v. Bowler
    Search
  47. United States v. Toral
    Search
  48. begins or whether a given unwarned statement will ultimately be held admissible. See Tanner v. Vincent
    Search
  49. that a defendant's ignorance of the full consequences of his decisions vitiates their voluntariness. See California v. Beheler
    Search
  50. an inadmissible confession at trial, compelling the defendant to testify in rebuttal, the rule announced in Harrison v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial