Oregon v. Bradshaw was a 1983 decision by the United States Supreme Court that applied the rule first announced in Edwards v.Arizona, and clarified the manner in which a suspect may waive his right under Miranda v. Arizona to have counsel present during interrogation by the police.. 81-1857. Argued March 28, 1983. First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, https://copshop.fandom.com/wiki/Oregon_v._Bradshaw?oldid=4182.

Edwards was meant to protect an accused from being badgered by the police. Get Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Oregon v. Bradshaw was a 1983 decision by the United States Supreme Court that applied the rule first announced in Edwards v. Arizona, and clarified the manner in which a suspect may waive his right under Miranda v. Arizona to have counsel present during interrogation by the police. This, the Court concluded, was not how the Edwards rule should be applied. Syllabus. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Bradshaw." The Cop Shop Wiki is a FANDOM Books Community. Thus, a suspect detained during an investigation may, after invoking his right to have counsel present during an interrogation, may ask for a drink of water or to use the telephone without retreating from his prior request for counsel. Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1857. It "evinced a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation; it was not merely a necessary inquiry arising out of the incidents of the custodial relationship." Result Edit. Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983), applied the rule first announced in Edwards v. Arizona (1981) and clarified the manner in which a suspect may waive his right under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) to have counsel present during interrogation by the police. Accordingly, the Court held that the Edwards rule had not been violated. "Oregon v. Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983), applied the rule first announced in Edwards v.Arizona (1981) and clarified the manner in which a suspect may waive his right under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) to have counsel present during interrogation by the police. Oregon v. Bradshaw. ", "initiated" conversation with the police "in the ordinary dictionary sense of the word." In other words, an accused does not waive his right to counsel during interrogation merely because, after invoking that right, he approaches the police with questions of his own. Bradshaw's question here, "Well, what is going to happen to me now? Accessed 16 Sep. 2020. The police did not otherwise make any threats, promises, or inducements to Bradshaw in order to persuade him to talk; in fact they confirmed that he had the right to counsel before resuming their questioning. To decide this case, the Court had to determine whether the Oregon Court of Appeals had correctly applied Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). Hence, if the accused himself approaches the police, this suggests that the accused may not be being badgered, so that when the police respond to the accused's queries with questions of their own, a reviewing court can decide, based on the totality of the circumstances, whether the accused had waived his Fifth Amendment rights during interrogation. Decided June 23, 1983. No. The Oregon Court of Appeals had concluded that Bradshaw had waived his right to counsel when he asked what would happen to him.

Under these circumstances, Bradshaw had voluntarily waived his right to counsel during interrogation. The question presented in this case was the effect of Bradshaw's query, "Well, what is going to happen to me now?". Take your favorite fandoms with you and never miss a beat. In Edwards, the Court had held that "an accused, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police." 462 U.S. 1039. He may not, however, ask more generalized and open-ended questions.