Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Roberti

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1982No. TC T79-12-0348, CA 18838, SC 27840Published

1DissentLinde, J.

The great virtue of a rule requiring police warnings to suspects whom an officer detains for questioning is, or should be, that the rule tells the officer what to do and when to do it. As Justice Lent’s dissent states, the federal or “Miranda” rule1 is addressed to the police officer, not to the detained person. The test of an opinion that purports to elucidate the rule is how clearly it tells the police under what circumstances to warn such a person before questioning. Police officers deserve and efficient law enforcement requires rules that are clear at the time of the investigatory act; a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Brown v. Multnomah County District CourtOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State v. BrewtonOregon Supreme Court · 1964
  4. State v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1970
  5. State v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API