Oregon v. Mathiason
- Decided
- January 25, 1977
- Docket
- 76-201
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,680 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a police officer’s false statement regarding incriminating fingerprints at the scene of the crime did not transform the interview into a custodial interrogation — Locke v. Cattell (2007)
- holding that defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not implicated where defendant went voluntarily to the police station at the invitation of investigating officer — Olson v. Carmack (2016)
- holding that an accused’s confession was admissible because there was no indication that the questioning took place in a context where his freedom to depart was restricted in any way — State v. McCary (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Per Curiam.
Respondent Carl Mathiason was convicted of first-degree burglary after a bench trial in which his confession was critical to the State’s case. At trial he moved to suppress the confession as the fruit of questioning by the police not preceded by the warnings required in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). The trial court refused to exclude the confession because it found that Mathiason was not in custody at the time of the confession.
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed respondent’s conviction, but on his petition for review in the Supreme Court of Oregon that court by a divided vote reversed the conviction. It found that although Mathiason had not been arrested or otherwise formally detained, “the interrogation took place in a ‘coercive environment’ ” of the sort to which Miranda was intended to apply. The court conceded that its holding was contrary to decisions in other jurisdictions, and referred in particular to People v. Yukl, 25 N. Y. 2d 585, 256 N. E. 2d 172 (1969). The State of Oregon has [*493] petitioned for certiorari to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oregon. We think that court has read Miranda too broadly, and we therefore reverse its judgment.
Cite this
Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.