Court Opinion

ID: 9587018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:17:23.662434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:59.501945
License: Public Domain

RIGGS, J.,
concurring.
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 475, 606 P2d 656, rev den 289 Or 373 (1980). The juvenile parole officer’s actions in counseling defendant to be truthful present no problem under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 US 477, 101 S Ct 1880, 68 L Ed 2d 378 (1981), or State v. Kell, supra, because the parole officer did not question defendant about the crime and made no attempt to persuade him to change his mind about invoking his right to counsel. The case is thus distinguishable from State v. Paz, 31 Or App 851, 572 P2d 1036 (1977), rev den 282 Or 189 (1978).