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.
23 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Illinois v. Krullgreen2 sentences2019Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340 , 347, 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987). ¶ 36 "The fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine is an outgrowth of the exclusionary rule providing that 'the fourth amendment violation is deemed the "poisonous tree," and any evidence obtained by exploiting that violation is subject to suppression as the "fruit" of that poisonous tree.' " People v. Burns , 2016 IL 118973 , ¶ 47, 401 Ill.Dec. 468 , 50 N.E.3d 610 (quoting People v. Henderson , 2013 IL 114040 , ¶ 33, 370 Ill.Dec. 804 , 989 N.E.2d 192 ). 2019Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340 , 347, 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987). ¶ 36 "The fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine is an outgrowth of the exclusionary rule providing that 'the fourth amendment violation is deemed the "poisonous tree," and any evidence obtained by exploiting that violation is subject to suppression as the "fruit" of that poisonous tree.' " People v. Burns , 2016 IL 118973 , ¶ 47, 401 Ill.Dec. 468 , 50 N.E.3d 610 (quoting People v. Henderson , 2013 IL 114040 , ¶ 33, 370 Ill.Dec. 804 , 989 N.E.2d 192 ). | 5 | 7 |
People v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2019Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340 , 347, 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987). ¶ 36 "The fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine is an outgrowth of the exclusionary rule providing that 'the fourth amendment violation is deemed the "poisonous tree," and any evidence obtained by exploiting that violation is subject to suppression as the "fruit" of that poisonous tree.' " People v. Burns , 2016 IL 118973 , ¶ 47, 401 Ill.Dec. 468 , 50 N.E.3d 610 (quoting People v. Henderson , 2013 IL 114040 , ¶ 33, 370 Ill.Dec. 804 , 989 N.E.2d 192 ). 2019Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340 , 347, 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987). ¶ 36 "The fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine is an outgrowth of the exclusionary rule providing that 'the fourth amendment violation is deemed the "poisonous tree," and any evidence obtained by exploiting that violation is subject to suppression as the "fruit" of that poisonous tree.' " People v. Burns , 2016 IL 118973 , ¶ 47, 401 Ill.Dec. 468 , 50 N.E.3d 610 (quoting People v. Henderson , 2013 IL 114040 , ¶ 33, 370 Ill.Dec. 804 , 989 N.E.2d 192 ). | 3 | 8 |
People v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2019Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340 , 347, 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987). ¶ 36 "The fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine is an outgrowth of the exclusionary rule providing that 'the fourth amendment violation is deemed the "poisonous tree," and any evidence obtained by exploiting that violation is subject to suppression as the "fruit" of that poisonous tree.' " People v. Burns , 2016 IL 118973 , ¶ 47, 401 Ill.Dec. 468 , 50 N.E.3d 610 (quoting People v. Henderson , 2013 IL 114040 , ¶ 33, 370 Ill.Dec. 804 , 989 N.E.2d 192 ). 2019As this court recognized in Burns: “The fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine is an outgrowth of the exclusionary rule providing that ‘the fourth amendment violation is deemed the “poisonous tree,” and any evidence obtained by exploiting that violation is subject to suppression as the “fruit” of that poisonous tree.’ ” Burns, 2016 IL 118973, ¶ 47 (quoting People v. Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 33 ). “[T]he ‘prime purpose’ of the exclusionary rule ‘is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ | 2 | 14 |
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2006For this proposition, defendant relied on the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine discussed in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85 , 9 L. 2006For this proposition, defendant relied on the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine discussed in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85 , 9 L. | 2 | 4 |
United States v. Calandragreen2 sentences2019As this court recognized in Burns: “The fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine is an outgrowth of the exclusionary rule providing that ‘the fourth amendment violation is deemed the “poisonous tree,” and any evidence obtained by exploiting that violation is subject to suppression as the “fruit” of that poisonous tree.’ ” Burns, 2016 IL 118973, ¶ 47 (quoting People v. Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 33 ). “[T]he ‘prime purpose’ of the exclusionary rule ‘is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ 2018As this Court recognized in Burns : "The fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine is an outgrowth of the exclusionary rule providing that 'the fourth amendment violation is deemed the "poisonous tree," and any evidence obtained by exploiting that violation is subject to suppression as the "fruit" of that poisonous tree.' " Burns , 2016 IL 118973 , ¶ 47, 401 Ill.Dec. 468 , 50 N.E.3d 610 (quoting People v. Henderson , 2013 IL 114040 , ¶ 33, 370 Ill.Dec. 804 , 989 N.E.2d 192 ). "[T]he 'prime purpose' of the exclusionary rule 'is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guara | 2 | 3 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., People v. Brown, 345 Ill. 2015See, e.g., People v. Brown, 345 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Mosleygreen2 sentences2006People v. Mosley, 63 Ill. 2006People v. Mosley, 63 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Gervasigreen2 sentences2006The supreme court in People v. Gervasi, 89 Ill. 2d 522, 528 (1982), adopted the test used in Wong Sun to determine whether evidence is the fruit of the poisonous tree: “We need not hold that all evidence is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. 2006Gervasi, 89 Ill. 2d at 530-31 . | 2 | 2 |
The PEOPLE v. Maslowskygreen2 sentences2006In People v. Maslowsky, 34 Ill. 2d 456, 464-65 (1966), the supreme court held that the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine was expressly included in the eavesdropping statute. 2006In People v. Maslowsky, 34 Ill. 2d 456, 464-65 (1966), the supreme court held that the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine was expressly included in the eavesdropping statute. | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a judicially created rule providing that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s fourth amendment rights will not be suppressed when “police acted with an ‘ “objectively ‘reasonable good-faith belief’ that their conduct [was] lawful,” ’ or when their conduct involved only simple, isolated negligence.” People v. LeFlore, 2015 IL 116799 , ¶ 24 (quoting United States v. Katzin, 769 F.3d 163, 171 (3d Cir. 2014), quoting Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 238 (2011), quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 909 (1984)). ¶ 36 This “ 2018The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a judicially created rule providing that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's fourth amendment rights will not be suppressed when "police acted with an " 'objectively 'reasonable good-faith belief' that their conduct [was] lawful,' " or when their conduct involved only simple, isolated negligence." People v. LeFlore , 2015 IL 116799 , ¶ 24, 392 Ill.Dec. 467 , 32 N.E.3d 1043 (quoting United States v. Katzin , 769 F.3d 163 , 171 (2014), quoting Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 , 238, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), quo | 1 | 2 |
People v. Sutherlandgreen2 sentences2019People v. Sutherland , 223 Ill. 2d 187 , 227, 307 Ill.Dec. 524 , 860 N.E.2d 178 (2006). ¶ 22 "The fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine is an outgrowth of the exclusionary rule providing that 'the fourth amendment violation is deemed the "poisonous tree," and any evidence obtained by exploiting that violation is subject to suppression as the "fruit" of that poisonous tree.' " People v. Burns , 2016 IL 118973 , ¶ 47, 401 Ill.Dec. 468 , 50 N.E.3d 610 (quoting People v. Henderson , 2013 IL 114040 , ¶ 33, 370 Ill.Dec. 804 , 989 N.E.2d 192 ). 2019People v. Sutherland , 223 Ill. 2d 187 , 227, 307 Ill.Dec. 524 , 860 N.E.2d 178 (2006). ¶ 22 "The fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine is an outgrowth of the exclusionary rule providing that 'the fourth amendment violation is deemed the "poisonous tree," and any evidence obtained by exploiting that violation is subject to suppression as the "fruit" of that poisonous tree.' " People v. Burns , 2016 IL 118973 , ¶ 47, 401 Ill.Dec. 468 , 50 N.E.3d 610 (quoting People v. Henderson , 2013 IL 114040 , ¶ 33, 370 Ill.Dec. 804 , 989 N.E.2d 192 ). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2019The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a judicially created rule providing that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s fourth amendment rights will not be suppressed when “police acted with an ‘ “objectively ‘reasonable good-faith belief’ that their conduct [was] lawful,” ’ or when their conduct involved only simple, isolated negligence.” People v. LeFlore, 2015 IL 116799 , ¶ 24 (quoting United States v. Katzin, 769 F.3d 163, 171 (3d Cir. 2014), quoting Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 238 (2011), quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 909 (1984)). ¶ 36 This “ 2018The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a judicially created rule providing that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's fourth amendment rights will not be suppressed when "police acted with an " 'objectively 'reasonable good-faith belief' that their conduct [was] lawful,' " or when their conduct involved only simple, isolated negligence." People v. LeFlore , 2015 IL 116799 , ¶ 24, 392 Ill.Dec. 467 , 32 N.E.3d 1043 (quoting United States v. Katzin , 769 F.3d 163 , 171 (2014), quoting Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 , 238, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), quo | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Harry Katzingreen2 sentences2019The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a judicially created rule providing that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s fourth amendment rights will not be suppressed when “police acted with an ‘ “objectively ‘reasonable good-faith belief’ that their conduct [was] lawful,” ’ or when their conduct involved only simple, isolated negligence.” People v. LeFlore, 2015 IL 116799 , ¶ 24 (quoting United States v. Katzin, 769 F.3d 163, 171 (3d Cir. 2014), quoting Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 238 (2011), quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 909 (1984)). ¶ 36 This “ 2018The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a judicially created rule providing that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's fourth amendment rights will not be suppressed when "police acted with an " 'objectively 'reasonable good-faith belief' that their conduct [was] lawful,' " or when their conduct involved only simple, isolated negligence." People v. LeFlore , 2015 IL 116799 , ¶ 24, 392 Ill.Dec. 467 , 32 N.E.3d 1043 (quoting United States v. Katzin , 769 F.3d 163 , 171 (2014), quoting Davis v. United States , 564 U.S. 229 , 238, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), quo | 1 | 2 |
People v. Sorensongreen1 sentence2023People v. Bonilla, 2018 IL 122484 , ¶ 35. ¶ 29 “Reasonableness under the fourth amendment generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause.” People v. Sorenson, 196 Ill. 2d 425, 432 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
People v. McCauleygreen2 sentences2003People v. McCauley, 163 Ill. 2d 414, 448 , 645 N.E.2d 923, 940 (1994). 2003People v. McCauley, 163 Ill. 2d 414, 448 , 645 N.E.2d 923, 940 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Santanagreen2 sentences2003See People v. Santana, 121 Ill. 2003See People v. Santana , 121 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. LeFlore
green
2 sentences2019The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a judicially created rule providing that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s fourth amendment rights will not be suppressed when “police acted with an ‘ “objectively ‘reasonable good-faith belief’ that their conduct [was] lawful,” ’ or when their conduct involved only simple, isolated negligence.” People v. LeFlore, 2015 IL 116799 , ¶ 24 (quoting United States v. Katzin, 769 F.3d 163, 171 (3d Cir. 2014), quoting Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 238 (2011), quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 909 (1984)). ¶ 36 This “ 2019However, " '[t]he mere fact of a fourth amendment violation does not mean that exclusion necessarily follows' because there 'is no constitutional right to have the evidence resulting from an illegal search or seizure suppressed at trial.' " Id. ¶ 51 (quoting LeFlore , 2015 IL 116799 , ¶ 22, 392 Ill.Dec. 467 , 32 N.E.3d 1043 ). | 4 | 2018–2019 |
People v. Bernard
neutral
2 sentences2015“The fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine is an outgrowth of the exclusionary rule.” Id. (citing Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 33 ). 2015“The fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine is an outgrowth of the exclusionary rule.” Id. (citing Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 33 ). | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Bonilla
green
1 sentence2023People v. Bonilla, 2018 IL 122484 , ¶ 35. ¶ 29 “Reasonableness under the fourth amendment generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause.” People v. Sorenson, 196 Ill. 2d 425, 432 (2001). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2020For a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two- pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Montes
green
2 sentences2020We affirm. 2020 IL App (2d) 180565 ¶2 I. 2020Defendant then proceeds to argue that his - 12 - 2020 IL App (2d) 180565 unconstitutional arrest vitiated his consent to search his home and requires suppression of evidence found therein, under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. ¶ 36 The State’s initial reply is that defendant failed to make a prima facie case on his motion to suppress, because defendant testified that the officers had a warrant to arrest him. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
The PEOPLE v. Abrams
green
2 sentences2003Abrams, 48 Ill. 2d at 455 , 271 N.E.2d at 43 . 2003Abrams, 48 Ill. 2d at 455 , 271 N.E.2d at 43 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Dickerson
green
1 sentence1986App. 3d 825, 828 , 387 N.E.2d 806 ), neither is the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine applicable to all evidence discovered in an illegal search (Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471, 487-88 , 9 L. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences1972In applying the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 64 L.Ed. 319 , 40 S.Ct. 182 ; Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 , 83 S.Ct. 407 ), which Holice Black now asserts, the courts have held that the burden is on the accused in the first instance to prove that the search and seizure was constitutionally impermissible. 1972In applying the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 64 L.Ed. 319 , 40 S.Ct. 182 ; Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 , 83 S.Ct. 407 ), which Holice Black now asserts, the courts have held that the burden is on the accused in the first instance to prove that the search and seizure was constitutionally impermissible. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.
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.