OREGON v. ELSTAD

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
83-773
Petitioner 
Oregon
Respondent 
Elstad
Advocates
(Argued the cause for the respondent)
(Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

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. Once at the Sheriff's headquarters, Elstad was advised of his rights. Elstad then voluntarily executed a written confession.

Question 

Was Elstad's written confession made invalid by the failure of the officers to administer Miranda warnings at his home?

Conclusion 
Decision: 6 votes for Oregon, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Miranda Warnings

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that while Miranda required that unwarned admissions must be suppressed, subsequent statements, if made knowingly and voluntarily, need not be. The Court held that ". . .the mere fact that a suspect has made an unwarned admission does not warrant a presumption of compulsion." The Court also noted that police officers were ill-equipped to determine when "custody" legally begins. Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority, argued that the holding "in no way retreat[ed] from the bright-line rule of Miranda."

Cite this Page
OREGON v. ELSTAD. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 23 October 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_773>.
OREGON v. ELSTAD, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_773 (last visited October 23, 2014).
"OREGON v. ELSTAD," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed October 23, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_773.