Court Opinion

ID: 9791134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:06:27.582396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:34.352560
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, J.,
dissenting.
The rules of Escobedo and Miranda were promulgated by the United States Supreme Court as prophylactic measures for the purpose of preventing police from exercising physical and psychological pressures upon persons in custody to obtain admissions and confessions. While this court had not theretofore seen sufficient evidence of such abuses in this state to merit such prophylactic rules, this court was bound by the necessarily uniform application of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The majority of this court now apply Escobedo and Miranda rules to searches and seizures. The application of such rules to searches and seizures can only be justified on the basis that there is the same necessity for prophylaxis because of similar abuses by the police in obtaining consents to searches and seizures. *95The United States Supreme Court has not yet determined that there are such abuses on a national scale and I know of no evidence which presently justifies such a determination in Oregon.
I, therefore, dissent.
Perry, C. J. and Goodwin, J. join in this dissent.