Oregon v. Bradshaw

462 U.S. 1039 (1983)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Reynolds' body had been found in his wrecked pickup truck, where he appeared to have been a passenger at the time the vehicle left the roadway, struck a tree and an embankment, and finally came to rest on its side in a shallow creek. Reynolds had died from traumatic injury, coupled with asphyxia by drowning. D was asked to accompany a police officer to the station for questioning. D was advised of his rights. D repeated to the police his earlier account of the events of the evening of Reynolds' death, admitting that he had provided Reynolds and others with liquor for a party at Reynolds' house, but denying involvement in the traffic accident that apparently killed Reynolds. D suggested that Reynolds might have met with foul play at the hands of the assailant whom D alleged had struck him at the party. D was placed under arrest for furnishing liquor to Reynolds, a minor, and again advised of his Miranda rights. D again denied his involvement, and said 'I do want an attorney before it goes very much further.' The officer immediately terminated the conversation. D was transferred from the station to the County Jail, a distance of some 10 or 15 miles. D inquired of a police officer, 'Well, what is going to happen to me now?' The officer answered by saying: 'You do not have to talk to me. You have requested an attorney and I don't want you talking to me unless you so desire because anything you say -- because -- since you have requested an attorney, you know, it has to be at your own free will.' D said he understood. The officer eventually suggested that D might help himself by taking a polygraph examination. D agreed to take such an examination, saying that he was willing to do whatever he could to clear up the matter. The next day, D got his Miranda rights and signed a written waiver. The polygraph was administered. The examiner told D he was lying. D then admitted that he had been at the wheel of the vehicle, that he had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol, and that he had passed out at the wheel before the vehicle left the roadway and came to rest in the creek. D’s motion to suppress was denied. D was found guilty after a bench trial. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the statements had been obtained in violation of D's Fifth Amendment rights. P appealed.