A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Supreme Court—November 30, 2017

From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search

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)