Oregon v. Elstad
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States case relating to Miranda warnings.[1]
| Oregon v. Elstad | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 3, 1984 Decided March 4, 1985 | |
| Full case name | Oregon, Petitioner v. Michael James Elstad |
| Citations | 470 U.S. 298 (more) 105 S. Ct. 1285; 84 L. Ed. 2d 222 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Conviction reversed, State v. Elstad, 61 Or. App. 673, 658 P.2d 552 (1983); cert. granted, 465 U.S. 1078 (1984). |
| Subsequent | Conviction affirmed on remand, State v. Elstad, 78 Or. App. 362, 717 P.2d 174 (1986). |
| Holding | |
| The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not require the suppression of a confession, made after proper Miranda warnings and a valid waiver of rights, solely because the police had obtained an earlier voluntary but unwarned admission from the suspect. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV | |
Background
A house in the town of Salem, Polk County (most of Salem is located in Marion County), Oregon was burglarized. A witness to the burglary contacted the local sheriff's office and implicated an 18 year old neighbor, Michael Elstad. Two officers went to Elstad's home with a warrant for his arrest. When the police entered the house and asked Elstad about the burglary he admitted to the burglary. The officers then escorted Elstad to the sheriff's headquarters. About an hour later, the same officers began interrogating Elstad by reading him his Miranda rights for the first time. During this interrogation, the officers obtained a written admission of Elstad's involvement in the burglary. Subsequently, Elstad was convicted of burglary and sentenced to 5 years and $18,000 in restitution.[2]
Case
The issue presented was whether the self-incrimination clause of the 5th amendment requires suppression of a confession made after Miranda warnings and a waiver, because police obtained an earlier admission without Miranda warnings.[2]
Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority, held that, while the pre-Miranda statements must be suppressed, the statements made after Miranda do not need to be suppressed as long as the statements were made knowingly and voluntarily.[3]
Subsequent Developments
In Missouri v. Seibert the police practice was to obtain a confession from suspects, then Mirandize the suspects and obtain a "valid" confession. Missouri developed this practice as a result of the holding in Oregon v. Elstad. The Supreme Court condemned this practice and suppressed the statements.[4]
Further reading
- Brooks, Peter (2005). "The Future of Confession". Law, Culture and the Humanities. 1 (1): 53–74. doi:10.1191/1743872105lw005oa.
References
- "Landmark Supreme Court Cases | Beyond Miranda: Case Decisions". Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Retrieved 2019-12-08.
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985).
- Bassi, Marte (1986). "Restricting the Miranda Presumption and Pruning the Poisonous Tree: Oregon v. Elstad". Golden Gate University Law Review. 16 (2): 331–348.
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004).; Moreno, Joelle (2005). "Faith-Based Miranda: Why the New Missouri v. Seibert Police Bad Faith Test Is a Terrible Idea". Arizona Law Review. 47 (1): 395–418.
External links
- Text of Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)