Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
When officers of the Polk County, Ore., Sheriff's Office picked up respondent at his home as a suspect in a burglary, he made an incriminating statement without having been given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436.
Michael James Elstad was suspected of committing a burglary and was picked up by police officers in his home. Before officers had given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, Elstad made an incriminating statement.
Elstad was found guilty of burglary in the first degree. He received a 5-year sentence, and was ordered to pay $18,000 in restitution. Following his conviction, respondent appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, relying on Wong Sun and Bayer.
Elstad, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 1317, 465 U.S. 1078, 104 S. Ct. 1437, 79 L. Ed. 2d 759, 52 U.S.L.W. 3650 (U.S. Mar. 5, 1984) Brief Fact Summary. An individual was convicted of burglary. A signed confession was used to convict him.
Download: Go. About this Item. Title U.S. Reports: Oregon v. ... Description: U.S. Reports Volume 470; October Term, 1984; Oregon v. Elstad Call Number/Physical Location Call Number: KF101 ... For guidance about compiling full citations consult Citing Primary Sources. Cite This Item ...
When officers of the Polk County, Ore., Sheriff's Office picked up respondent at his home as a suspect in a burglary, he made an incriminating statement without having been given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436.
Respondent, Michael James Elstad, was convicted of burglary by an Oregon trial court. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding that respondent’s signed confession, although voluntary, was rendered inadmissible by a prior remark made in response to questioning without benefit of Miranda warnings.
