Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
29 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2021 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kenneth Lee Douds v. Stategreen2 sentences2016The Court has rejected efforts to. broaden the good faith exception using federal precedent and has refused to adopt • federal exceptions inconsistent with the text of the Texas statutory exclusionary rule, Douds, 434 S.W.3d at 861 (citing Howard v. State, 617 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (op. on reh’g)); Tercero, 467 S.W.3d at 10 ; State v. Anderson, 445 S.W.3d 895, 912 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2014, no pet). 2015The Court of Criminal Appeals has previously held that “exceptions to the federal exclusionary rule only apply to the Texas statutory exclusionary rule if they are consistent with the plain language of the statute.” Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842, 861 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. granted). | 4 | 7 |
Howard v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Douds, 434 S.W.3d at 861 (citing Howard v. State, 617 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (op. on reh’g)); Tercero, 467 S.W.3d at 10 ; State v. Anderson, 445 S.W.3d 895, 912 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2014, no pet.). 2016The Court has rejected efforts to. broaden the good faith exception using federal precedent and has refused to adopt • federal exceptions inconsistent with the text of the Texas statutory exclusionary rule, Douds, 434 S.W.3d at 861 (citing Howard v. State, 617 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (op. on reh’g)); Tercero, 467 S.W.3d at 10 ; State v. Anderson, 445 S.W.3d 895, 912 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2014, no pet). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Daughertygreen2 sentences2021Id. at 271–73. 2014“The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that exceptions to the federal exclusionary rule only apply to the Texas statutory exclusionary rule if they are consistent with the plain language of the statute.” Douds, 434 S.W.3d at 861 (comparing Wehrenberg v. State, 416 S.W.3d 458, 473 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) to State v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Ester Aboytes Andersongreen2 sentences2016The Court has rejected efforts to. broaden the good faith exception using federal precedent and has refused to adopt • federal exceptions inconsistent with the text of the Texas statutory exclusionary rule, Douds, 434 S.W.3d at 861 (citing Howard v. State, 617 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (op. on reh’g)); Tercero, 467 S.W.3d at 10 ; State v. Anderson, 445 S.W.3d 895, 912 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2014, no pet). 2016Ann. art. 38.23(b); see Anderson, 445 S.W.3d at 912 . *570 Unlike the Texas statutory exclusionary rule, the judicially-created federal exclusionary rule has at least three good faith exceptions. | 3 | 4 |
Wehrenberg, Michael Fredgreen2 sentences2014“The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that exceptions to the federal exclusionary rule only apply to the Texas statutory exclusionary rule if they are consistent with the plain language of the statute.” Douds, 434 S.W.3d at 861 (comparing Wehrenberg v. State, 416 S.W.3d 458, 473 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) to State v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)). 2014Compare Wehrenberg v. State, 416 S.W.3d 458, 473 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013) (adopting federal independent source exception), with State v. Daugherty, 931 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (declining to adopt federal inevitable discovery exception). | 3 | 3 |
Davidson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010DAWSON , TEXAS PRACTICE : CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §§ 4.11-4.35 (2d ed. 2001) (discussing the distinctions between the federal constitutional exclusionary law and the Texas statutory exclusionary rule; noting that “Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes what is probably the broadest state exclusionary requirement of any American jurisdiction.”). 24 See Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n.4 (Tex. Crim. 2010DAWSON, TEXAS PRACTICE: CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §§ 4.11-4.35 (2d ed. 2001) (discussing the distinctions between the federal constitutional exclusionary law and the Texas statutory exclusionary rule; noting that "Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes what is probably the broadest state exclusionary requirement of any American jurisdiction."). [24] See Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 7 | 2 | 3 |
Chavez v. Stategreen2 sentences2010App. 2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 714 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no pet.) (art. 38.23 is more protective of individual rights than the federal constitution). 25 Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d at 36 n.33; Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex. Crim. 2010DAWSON, TEXAS PRACTICE: CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §§ 4.11-4.35 (2d ed. 2001) (discussing the distinctions between the federal constitutional exclusionary law and the Texas statutory exclusionary rule; noting that "Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes what is probably the broadest state exclusionary requirement of any American jurisdiction."). [24] See Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 7 | 2 | 2 |
Imo v. Stategreen2 sentences2010DAWSON, TEXAS PRACTICE: CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §§ 4.11-4.35 (2d ed. 2001) (discussing the distinctions between the federal constitutional exclusionary law and the Texas statutory exclusionary rule; noting that "Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes what is probably the broadest state exclusionary requirement of any American jurisdiction."). [24] See Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 7 2010See Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitu tional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 714 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1992, no pet.) (art. 38.23 is more protective of individual rights than the federal constitution). . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1998The Texas statutory exclusionary rule applies to evidence unlawfully obtained by a private individual not acting as an agent of the government State v. Johnson, 939 S.W.2d 586, 587-88 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); see Tex. Code Crim. 1998The Texas statutory exclusionary rule applies to evidence unlawfully obtained by a private individual not acting as an agent of the government State v. Johnson , 939 S.W.2d 586, 587-88 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2020State v. Johnson, 843 S.W.2d 252, 258 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992), aff’d, 871 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared1 sentence2020App. 1997); see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967) (beneficiary of constitutional error must prove beyond reasonable doubt that error did not contribute to verdict): Morris v. State, 554 S.W.3d 98 , 124 13 In State v. Johnson, we held that the attenuation doctrine “continues to exist in Texas” notwithstanding the enactment of Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (the Texas statutory exclusionary rule). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016See Anderson, 445 S.W.3d at 912 (citing Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 237-40, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 2427-28, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), and Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842, 861 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (mem.op.), rev’d on other grounds, 472 S.W.3d 670, 677 (Tex.Crim.App.2015) (holding suppression error not preserved), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1461 , 194 L.Ed.2d 552 (2016)). 2016See Anderson, 445 S.W.3d at 912 (citing Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 237-40, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 2427-28, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), and Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842, 861 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (mem.op.), rev’d on other grounds, 472 S.W.3d 670, 677 (Tex.Crim.App.2015) (holding suppression error not preserved), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1461 , 194 L.Ed.2d 552 (2016)). | 1 | 1 |
Douds, Kenneth Leegreen1 sentence2016See Anderson, 445 S.W.3d at 912 (citing Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 237-40, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 2427-28, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), and Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842, 861 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (mem.op.), rev’d on other grounds, 472 S.W.3d 670, 677 (Tex.Crim.App.2015) (holding suppression error not preserved), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1461 , 194 L.Ed.2d 552 (2016)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carlosgreen1 sentence2016Further, we note that when this Court was confronted with a similar issue regarding the Texas statutory exclusionary rule, we rejected the contention that the defendant “waived any argument that the evidence, while not subject to the federal exclusionary rule, should be excluded under” the Texas statutory exclusionary rule because “[n]othing in the text of article 38.23 suggests that this provision must be specifically cited to in order for evidence to be suppressed under Texas’s exclusionary rule” and because “the State has not cited any authority supporting such a theory.” See Roop v. State, | 1 | 1 |
Florida v. Henrygreen1 sentence2016See Anderson, 445 S.W.3d at 912 (citing Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 237-40, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 2427-28, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), and Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842, 861 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (mem.op.), rev’d on other grounds, 472 S.W.3d 670, 677 (Tex.Crim.App.2015) (holding suppression error not preserved), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1461 , 194 L.Ed.2d 552 (2016)). | 1 | 1 |
Wilhelm v. Woodfordgreen1 sentence2016See Anderson, 445 S.W.3d at 912 (citing Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 237-40, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 2427-28, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), and Douds v. State, 434 S.W.3d 842, 861 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (mem.op.), rev’d on other grounds, 472 S.W.3d 670, 677 (Tex.Crim.App.2015) (holding suppression error not preserved), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1461 , 194 L.Ed.2d 552 (2016)). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015This Court of Criminal Appeals explained in Wilson that the purpose of Article 38.23 is "to protect a suspect's privacy, property, and liberty rights against overzealous law enforcement . . . [and] to deter unlawful actions which violate the rights of criminal suspects in the acquisition of evidence for prosecution." Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452, 458-59 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Roberts violated section 37.09 by using a fabricated document, and whether that statute is related to the purpose of the Texas statutory exclusionary rule.12 The State does not now complain, and never has complained, that appellant failed to raise his section 37.09 argument in the trial court, although it could have done so in its petition for discretionary review.13 Under these circumstances, we conclude that there is no issue before us concerning the propriety of the 10 Wilson v. State, 277 S.W.3d 446, 449 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008). 11 Because of its disposition on the basis of section 37 2010Id. at 450 n.5. 12 The State’s Summary of the Argument is as follows: Because deception and trickery is a lawful method of investigation, the detective did not violate Texas Penal Code Section 37.09 by creating a fictitious lab report during appellee’s interrogation. | 1 | 1 |
| Polk v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Allen Tercero
green
2 sentences2016Douds, 434 S.W.3d at 861 (citing Howard v. State, 617 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (op. on reh’g)); Tercero, 467 S.W.3d at 10 ; State v. Anderson, 445 S.W.3d 895, 912 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2014, no pet.). 2016The Court has rejected efforts to. broaden the good faith exception using federal precedent and has refused to adopt • federal exceptions inconsistent with the text of the Texas statutory exclusionary rule, Douds, 434 S.W.3d at 861 (citing Howard v. State, 617 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (op. on reh’g)); Tercero, 467 S.W.3d at 10 ; State v. Anderson, 445 S.W.3d 895, 912 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2014, no pet). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences2016The Texas statutory exclusionary rule specifies only one good faith ■ exception for “a law enforcement officer acting in objective good faith reliance upon a warrant issued by .a neutral- magistrate based on probable' cause.” Id. art. 38.23(b). 2016The Texas statutory exclusionary rule specifies only one good faith exception for “a law enforcement officer acting in objective good faith reliance upon a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause.” Id. art. 38.23(b). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Carroll v. State
green
2 sentences2011However, the court considered as completely different “an independent claim based on the Texas statutory exclusionary rule which affords greater protection than the federal and state constitutional provisions.” Id. at 219 . 2011However, the court considered as completely different “an independent claim based on the Texas statutory exclusionary rule which affords greater protection than the federal and state constitutional provisions.” Id. at 219 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Miles v. State
green
2 sentences2010App. 2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 714 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no pet.) (art. 38.23 is more protective of individual rights than the federal constitution). 25 Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d at 36 n.33; Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex. Crim. 2010DAWSON, TEXAS PRACTICE: CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §§ 4.11-4.35 (2d ed. 2001) (discussing the distinctions between the federal constitutional exclusionary law and the Texas statutory exclusionary rule; noting that "Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes what is probably the broadest state exclusionary requirement of any American jurisdiction."). [24] See Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 7 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Roquemore v. State
green
2 sentences2004Roquemore v. State , 60 S.W.3d 862 , 871 n.12 (Tex. Crim. 2004Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862 , 871 n.12 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence2020State v. Johnson, 843 S.W.2d 252, 258 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992), aff’d, 871 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Morris v. State
green
1 sentence2020App. 1997); see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967) (beneficiary of constitutional error must prove beyond reasonable doubt that error did not contribute to verdict): Morris v. State, 554 S.W.3d 98 , 124 13 In State v. Johnson, we held that the attenuation doctrine “continues to exist in Texas” notwithstanding the enactment of Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (the Texas statutory exclusionary rule). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Roop v. State
green
1 sentence2016Further, we note that when this Court was confronted with a similar issue regarding the Texas statutory exclusionary rule, we rejected the contention that the defendant “waived any argument that the evidence, while not subject to the federal exclusionary rule, should be excluded under” the Texas statutory exclusionary rule because “[n]othing in the text of article 38.23 suggests that this provision must be specifically cited to in order for evidence to be suppressed under Texas’s exclusionary rule” and because “the State has not cited any authority supporting such a theory.” See Roop v. State, | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Illinois v. Krull
green
1 sentence2016The federal exclusionary rules apply to the Texas statutory exclusionary rule only if they are consistent with the plain language of article 38.23, See id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Brick v. State
green
1 sentence2010App.2000) (Price, J., concurring); Brick v. State, 738 S.W.2d 676 , 679 n. 5 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hudson v. Michigan
green
1 sentence2007The U.S. Supreme Court focused on causation in Hudson; the Court noted that under the facts presented, there was no but-for causal relationship. 126 S.Ct. at 2164 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Garcia v. State
green
2 sentences1996The court of appeals, relying on this Court's plurality opinion in Garcia v. State, 829 S.W.2d 796 (Tex.Crim. 1996The court of appeals, relying on this Court’s plurality opinion in Garcia v. State, 829 S.W.2d 796 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), held there was no inevitable discovery doctrine exception to Article 38.23. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Weeks v. United States red | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Brown v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.