Oregon Supreme Court—November 30, 2017
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
by: Msofia@ocdla.org • December 6, 2017 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> '''<big>SEARCH & SEIZURE</big>''' '''Motion to Suppress—Preservation''' </summary> '''<big>SEARCH & SEIZURE</big>''' '''Motion to Suppress—Preserva...") |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
'''Motion to Suppress—Preservation''' | '''Motion to Suppress—Preservation''' | ||
| − | When defendant moved to suppress all statements he made during an encounter with police, and trial court’s ruling only addressed suppression of defendant’s post-Miranda statements, defendant not required to again request suppression of pre-Miranda statements to preserve that issue for appeal. | + | When defendant moved to suppress all statements he made during an encounter with police, and trial court’s ruling only addressed suppression of defendant’s post-''Miranda'' statements, defendant not required to again request suppression of pre-''Miranda'' statements to preserve that issue for appeal. |
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S065098.pdf State v. Schmidtke], 362 Or 203 (2017) (Per Curiam) | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S065098.pdf State v. Schmidtke], 362 Or 203 (2017) (Per Curiam) | ||
Revision as of 17:31, December 6, 2017
SEARCH & SEIZURE
Motion to Suppress—Preservation
When defendant moved to suppress all statements he made during an encounter with police, and trial court’s ruling only addressed suppression of defendant’s post-Miranda statements, defendant not required to again request suppression of pre-Miranda statements to preserve that issue for appeal.
State v. Schmidtke, 362 Or 203 (2017) (Per Curiam)
