Search results
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 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.
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.
A case brief of Oregon v. Elstad, a Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of a confession obtained after a suspect was questioned without Miranda warnings. The brief explains the facts, issue, rule of law, and holding of the case, and compares it with other related cases.
Oregon v. Elstad. United States Supreme Court. 470 U.S. 298 (1985) Written by Sarah Venti, JD. Facts. A home was burglarized, and a witness implicated Elstad (defendant) in the crime. After obtaining an arrest warrant, two officers went to Elstad’s home, where his mother let them inside.
The Supreme Court ruled that a confession made after Miranda warnings were given was not tainted by a previous statement made without warnings. The Court applied the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine and found that the confession was voluntary and reliable.
oregon v. ELSTAD is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 4, 1985. The case was argued before the court on October 3, 1984.
