| Oregon v. Bradshaw | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 28, 1983 Decided June 23, 1983 | |
| Full case name | State of Oregon v. James Edward Bradshaw |
| Citations | 462 U.S. 1039 (more) 103 S. Ct. 2830; 77 L. Ed. 2d 405 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Conviction reversed by the Oregon Court of Appeals, 636 P.2d 1011 (Or. Ct. App. 1981), cert. granted, 459 U.S. 966 (1982) |
| Holding | |
| Once a suspect invokes his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, the police may not initiate questioning until the suspect has an attorney present or voluntarily approaches the police with further questions beyond a "necessary inquiry arising out of the incidents of the custodial relationship." | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, White, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Powell |
| Dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. 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.