State v. Buchholz

Although its holding is correct, the majority is wrong when it asserts in dictum-. “If Cartlidge was acting as an agent for the police, * * * defendant’s confession would be inadmissible.” 97 Or App at 225. The determinative issue in this case is not the lack of an agency relationship between defendant’s juvenile parole officer and the police, but rather defendant’s reinitiation of contact with the police regarding the crime with which he was charged. Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 US 1039, 103 S Ct 2830, 77 L Ed 2d 405 (1983); State v. Kell, 303 Or 89, 734 P2d 334 (1987); State v. Parras, 44 Or App…