Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Wandle

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 16, 1985No. 35849; CA A32153Published

1DissentButtler, P. J.

*754Because defendant has asserted only his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, we need not reconsider our statement in State v. Smith, 70 Or App 675, 691 P2d 484 (1984), rev allowed 298 Or 704 (1985), that Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution requires no more than is required by Miranda as most recently interpreted in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 US_, 104 S Ct 3138, 82 L Ed 2d 317 (1984).

Although Berkemer, by its express language, applies only to “ordinary traffic stops,” this court in State v. Smith, supra, and State v. Hackworth, 69 Or App 358, 685 P2d…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  3. State v. HackworthCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  4. State v. BozgozCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API