Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in Texas

31 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (38)

CaseFollowedCited
Amador v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2009 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2016
2 sentences

2016Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 650–51, 655 (1976); Amador v. State, 275 S.W.3d 872, 878 (Tex. Crim.

2016Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 650–51, 655 (1976); Amador v. State, 275 S.W.3d 872, 878 (Tex. Crim.

44
People v. Hillyardgreen
colo · 1979 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La. 1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La. 1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47

33
Brown v. Illinoisgreen
scotus · 1975 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See n. 5, ante. [34] Id. [35] 422 U.S. 590, 603-604 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (temporal proximity of initial illegality to acquisition of evidence, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of police misconduct are all relevant factors in deciding whether evidence was obtained by exploitation of the illegality such that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should apply).

2011See n. 5, ante. [34] Id. [35] 422 U.S. 590, 603-604 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (temporal proximity of initial illegality to acquisition of evidence, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of police misconduct are all relevant factors in deciding whether evidence was obtained by exploitation of the illegality such that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should apply).

33
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scottgreen
scotus · 1998 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2006
2 sentences

2006See Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363-64 , 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998)(holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials); Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 771-72 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 , 149 L.Ed.2d 994 (2001)(finding that states are not permitted to interpret the Fourth Amendment as offering greater protection than determined by the United States Supreme Court); Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103 , 105 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)(stating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held that Article I, § 9 of the Texas

2006See Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363-64 , 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998)(holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials); Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 771-72 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 , 149 L.Ed.2d 994 (2001)(finding that states are not permitted to interpret the Fourth Amendment as offering greater protection than determined by the United States Supreme Court); Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103 , 105 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)(stating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held that Article I, § 9 of the Texas

33
State of Texas v. Jackson, John Berrygreen
texcrimapp · 2015 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2017–2024
2 sentences

2024Neither the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule nor article 38.23(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure “requires the suppression of evidence that was not ‘obtained’ as a result of some illegality.” State v. Jackson, 464 S.W.3d 724, 731 (Tex. 6 Detective Chavez’s body-cam video shows that he observed the cinderblock structure and cement bags before the end of the protective sweep.

2022Id.

24
Gutierrez v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2007 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See Gutierrez, 221 S.W.3d at 685 . 5 See also Lowery v. State, No. 07-13-00195-CR, 2015 WL 410696 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 29, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (even though trial court made written findings of fact following hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress, omitted findings of fact are implied in favor of trial court’s ruling if evidence supports the implied findings). 6 The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment.

2016See Gutierrez, 221 S.W.3d at 685 . 5 See also Lowery v. State, No. 07-13-00195-CR, 2015 WL 410696 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 29, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (even though trial court made written findings of fact following hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress, omitted findings of fact are implied in favor of trial court’s ruling if evidence supports the implied findings). 6 The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteen Amendment.

22
State v. Thompsongreen
neb · 1989 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La. 1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La. 1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47

22
United States v. David Lee Greengreen
ca7 · 1997 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La. 1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La.1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47 ,

22
State v. Pagegreen
idaho · 2004 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La. 1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La. 1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47

22
In the Interest of K.M.S.green
tex · 2002 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006App.1998)(same). [3] Martinez v. State, 91 S.W.3d 331, 336 (Tex.Crim.App.2002)(holding that appellate courts may uphold a trial court's ruling on any legal theory or basis applicable to the case, but may not reverse a trial court's ruling on any theory or basis that might have been applicable to the case, but was not raised); Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118, 121-22 (Tex. Crim.App.2002) (same); State v. Mercado, 972 S.W.2d 75, 77-78 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).

2006App. 1998)(same). [3] Martinez v. State , 91 S.W.3d 331, 336 (Tex. Crim.

22
Hulit v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1998 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006See Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363-64 , 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998)(holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials); Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 771-72 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 , 149 L.Ed.2d 994 (2001)(finding that states are not permitted to interpret the Fourth Amendment as offering greater protection than determined by the United States Supreme Court); Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103 , 105 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)(stating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held that Article I, § 9 of the Texas

2006App. 1999)( stating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held that Article I, ' 9 of the Texas Constitution does not provide any greater protection than the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule); Hulit v. State , 982 S.W.2d 431, 436 (Tex. Crim.

22
United States v. Leongreen
scotus · 1984 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1984–2018
2 sentences

2018See id. at 443 ; see also United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 919 (1984) (holding that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not be applied so as to bar the use in the prosecution’s case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid).

1991The question presented is whether the fourth amendment exclusionary rule “should be modified so as not to bar the use ... of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 900 , 104 S.Ct. at 3409 , 82 L.Ed.2d at 684 .

13
Arkansas v. Sullivangreen
scotus · 2001 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006See Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363-64 , 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998)(holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials); Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 771-72 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 , 149 L.Ed.2d 994 (2001)(finding that states are not permitted to interpret the Fourth Amendment as offering greater protection than determined by the United States Supreme Court); Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103 , 105 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)(stating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held that Article I, § 9 of the Texas

2006See Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363-64 , 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998)(holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials); Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 771-72 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 , 149 L.Ed.2d 994 (2001)(finding that states are not permitted to interpret the Fourth Amendment as offering greater protection than determined by the United States Supreme Court); Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103 , 105 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)(stating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held that Article I, § 9 of the Texas

12
Love v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2016 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020But I write separately to address the court of appeals’s analysis and our decision in Love v. State, 543 S.W.3d 835, 845 (Tex. Crim.

11
United States v. Daniel Aleman, IIgreen
ca5 · 2017 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018See id. at 443 ; see also United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 919 (1984) (holding that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not be applied so as to bar the use in the prosecution’s case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid).

11
Illinois v. Krullgreen
scotus · 1987 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340 , 349-50, 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987) (courts may not apply the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to suppress evidence obtained by an officer's asserted good faith reliance on a statute unless the statute is clearly unconstitutional); Warshak , 631 F.3d at 288-92 (emails that the Government received from the records of the defendant's internet service provider under the Stored Communications Act, because secured without a warrant based on probable cause, were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but suppression of those emails was not

2016See Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340 , 349-50, 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987) (courts may not apply the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to suppress evidence obtained by an officer's asserted good faith reliance on a statute unless the statute is clearly unconstitutional); Warshak , 631 F.3d at 288-92 (emails that the Government received from the records of the defendant's internet service provider under the Stored Communications Act, because secured without a warrant based on probable cause, were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but suppression of those emails was not

11
United States v. Warshakgreen
ca6 · 2010 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016See Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340 , 349-50, 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987) (courts may not apply the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to suppress evidence obtained by an officer's asserted good faith reliance on a statute unless the statute is clearly unconstitutional); Warshak , 631 F.3d at 288-92 (emails that the Government received from the records of the defendant's internet service provider under the Stored Communications Act, because secured without a warrant based on probable cause, were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but suppression of those emails was not

11
Kelly v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016See Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568, 573 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); see also State v. Esparza, 413 S.W.3d 81, 88 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (explaining difference between complaint that breath-test results were inadmissible as not scientifically reliable and complaint that the results should be suppressed under article 38.23 and the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule).

11
State of Texas v. Esparza, Carlosgreen
texcrimapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016See Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568, 573 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); see also State v. Esparza, 413 S.W.3d 81, 88 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (explaining difference between complaint that breath-test results were inadmissible as not scientifically reliable and complaint that the results should be suppressed under article 38.23 and the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule).

11
Johnson v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744, 750-51 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994); State v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Tex.Code, Crim.

2015See Johnson, 871 S.W.2d at 750-51 , and cases cited therein; Tex.Code Crim.

11
State v. Daughertygreen
texcrimapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744, 750-51 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994); State v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Tex.Code, Crim.

11
United States v. Bryan Lee Simpsongreen
ca8 · 2006 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
11
Golphin v. Stategreen
fla · 2006 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
11
State v. Martingreen
kan · 2008 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
11
Longoria v. Stategreen
texapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
11
Brigham City v. Stuartgreen
scotus · 2006 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
11
Bryant v. Stategreen
ind · 1996 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
11
Janicek v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
11
Hailey v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
11
State v. Mercadogreen
texcrimapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
11
Motor Vehicle Administration v. Richardsgreen
md · 1999 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
11
State v. Christensengreen
mont · 1990 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
11
Riche v. Director of Revenuegreen
mo · 1999 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
11
State v. Turnergreen
kan · 1995 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
11
Richardson v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
11
State v. Marquartgreen
nmctapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
11
Ahart v. Colorado Department of Corrections, Division of Adult Services, Buena Vista Correctional Facilitygreen
colo · 1998 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
11
Wolf v. Coloradored
scotus · 1949 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (18)

CaseCitedYears
Mapp v. Ohio green
scotus · 1961
2 sentences

1998Importantly, Welchek was decided prior to Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (Extended the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to prosecutions in state courts.) Therefore, when Welchek was decided, Fourth Amendment guarantees had not yet been extended to the citizenry of Texas in state court proceedings.

1998Importantly, Welchek was decided prior to Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (Extended the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to prosecutions in state courts.) Therefore, when Welchek was decided, Fourth Amendment guarantees had not yet been extended to the citizenry of Texas in state court proceedings.

51998–2016
Oregon v. Elstad green
scotus · 1985
2 sentences

2005Appellant acknowledges the holding in Oregon v. Elstad , 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), that, unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, the rule adopted in Miranda is designed to protect against a defendant’s compelled testimony. 470 U.S. at 306-07 .

2005Appellant acknowledges the holding in Oregon v. Elstad , 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), that, unlike the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, the rule adopted in Miranda is designed to protect against a defendant’s compelled testimony. 470 U.S. at 306-07 .

32005–2005
Jacobs v. State green
oklacrimapp · 2006
2 sentences

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La. 1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La.1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47 ,

22011–2011
United States v. Randall R. Johnson green
ca7 · 2004
2 sentences

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La. 1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La.1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47 ,

22011–2011
State v. Jones green
kan · 2001
2 sentences

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La. 1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La. 1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47

22011–2011
State v. Hill green
la · 1998
2 sentences

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La. 1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47

2011See, e.g., People v. Hillyard, 197 Colo. 83, 85-86 , 589 P.2d 939, 941 (1979) (applying Brown factors to determine whether taint from illegal initial detention is attenuated by detaining officer's subsequent discovery of outstanding arrest warrant); State v. Thompson, 231 Neb. 771, 777-78 , 438 N.W.2d 131, 136-37 (1989) (same); United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521-23 (C.A.7 1997) (same); State v. Hill, 725 So.2d 1282 (La.1998) (same); State v. Jones, 270 Kan. 526 , 17 P.3d 359 (2001) (same); United States v. Johnson, 383 F.3d 538 (C.A.7 2004) (same); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 845-47 ,

22011–2011
Oles v. State green
texcrimapp · 1999
2 sentences

2006See Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363-64 , 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998)(holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials); Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 771-72 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 , 149 L.Ed.2d 994 (2001)(finding that states are not permitted to interpret the Fourth Amendment as offering greater protection than determined by the United States Supreme Court); Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103 , 105 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)(stating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held that Article I, § 9 of the Texas

2006See Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott , 524 U.S. 357, 363-64 (1998)(holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials); Arkansas v. Sullivan , 532 U.S. 769, 771-72 (2001)(finding that states are not permitted to interpret the Fourth Amendment as offering greater protection than determined by the United States Supreme Court); Oles v.State , 993 S.W.2d 103 , 105 n.1 (Tex. Crim.

22006–2006
McClintock, Bradley Ray green
texcrimapp · 2014
1 sentence

2017McClintock v. State , 444 S.W.3d 15 , 20-21 (Tex. Crim.

12017–2017
United States v. Kevin McClain George Brandt, III Jason Davis green
ca6 · 2006
1 sentence

2017The Sixth Circuit for the first time explicitly framed the issue as one of how to "reconcile the 'good faith' exception established in Leon ... with the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine[.]" United States v. McClain , 444 F.3d 556 , 564 (6th Cir. 2005).

12017–2017
Fletcher v. State green
texapp · 2002
12012–2012
People v. Brendlin green
cal · 2008
12011–2011
State v. Frierson green
fla · 2006
12011–2011
Mincey v. Arizona green
scotus · 1978
12007–2007
Nix v. Williams green
scotus · 1984
12001–2001
Stone v. Powell green
scotus · 1976
12001–2001
United States v. Calandra green
scotus · 1974
12001–2001
Bell v. State green
texcrimapp · 1986
11996–1996
Vanderbilt v. State green
texcrimapp · 1981
11996–1996

Where else courts name it

CA 62 (1967–2023) OH 55 (1977–2025) IL 42 (1980–2021) MD 33 (1975–2022) TX 31 (1984–2024) PA 30 (1971–2019) OR 17 (1981–2021) MN 15 (1977–2024) CO 15 (1985–2023) AR 13 (1982–2005) KS 12 (1984–2024) VA 12 (1981–2022) DC 12 (1985–2024) FL 11 (1978–2007) UT 11 (1983–2025) IN 11 (1975–2015) NY 10 (1969–2004) MO 10 (1976–1990) NJ 10 (1983–2016) SC 9 (1990–2020) TN 8 (1982–2019) NC 8 (1978–2017) MI 8 (1976–2021) AL 8 (1988–2026) NM 7 (1991–2009) WI 7 (1977–2015) LA 7 (1986–2023) OK 7 (1982–2019) NE 6 (1988–2005) CT 6 (1993–2025) ID 6 (1984–2024) WA 6 (1973–1997) RI 5 (1986–2001) MA 5 (1998–2011) MS 3 (1977–2011) SD 3 (1989–2009) AK 3 (1978–1990) IA 3 (1995–2019) GA 3 (1983–2008) DE 2 (2016–2023) AZ 2 (1998–2018) WV 2 (1987–1994) ND 2 (1990–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check