poisonous tree doctrine in South Carolina

20 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by South Carolina 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 (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Copelandgreen sc · 1996 · cited in 13 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2000–2026 2 sentences 2026"The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of that illegality." State v. Moore, 429 S.C. 465 , 478-79, 839 S.E.2d 882 , 889 (2020) (quoting State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996)). 2026"The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of that illegality." State v. Moore, 429 S.C. 465 , 478-79, 839 S.E.2d 882 , 889 (2020) (quoting State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996)).	13	13
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1963 · cited in 9 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1981–2011 2 sentences 2011See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) ("The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by exploitation of that illegality.”) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). 5 . 2011See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) ("The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by exploitation of that illegality.”) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). 5 .	7	9
State v. Robinsongreen sc · 1991 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2002–2005 2 sentences 2005See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) (“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of the illegality.”); Robinson, 306 S.C. at 402 , 412 S.E.2d at 414 (suppressing drug evidence as the fruit of an unlawful stop because no attenuating circumstances removed the taint of the illegality from the consent to search); State v. Greene, 330 S.C. 551, 559 , 499 S.E.2d 817, 821 (Ct.App.1997) (“The fruit 2005See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) (“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of the illegality.”); Robinson, 306 S.C. at 402 , 412 S.E.2d at 414 (suppressing drug evidence as the fruit of an unlawful stop because no attenuating circumstances removed the taint of the illegality from the consent to search); State v. Greene, 330 S.C. 551, 559 , 499 S.E.2d 817, 821 (Ct.App.1997) (“The fruit	2	2
State v. Greenegreen scctapp · 1997 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2002–2005 2 sentences 2005See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) (“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of the illegality.”); Robinson, 306 S.C. at 402 , 412 S.E.2d at 414 (suppressing drug evidence as the fruit of an unlawful stop because no attenuating circumstances removed the taint of the illegality from the consent to search); State v. Greene, 330 S.C. 551, 559 , 499 S.E.2d 817, 821 (Ct.App.1997) (“The fruit 2005See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) (“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of the illegality.”); Robinson, 306 S.C. at 402 , 412 S.E.2d at 414 (suppressing drug evidence as the fruit of an unlawful stop because no attenuating circumstances removed the taint of the illegality from the consent to search); State v. Greene, 330 S.C. 551, 559 , 499 S.E.2d 817, 821 (Ct.App.1997) (“The fruit	2	2
State v. Plathgreen sc · 1981 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–2004 2 sentences 2004(Flush this sh-- rip it up first) (Write me back). The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine holds that where evidence would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of that illegality, the evidence must be excluded. State v. Plath , 277 S.C. 126, 134 , 284 S.E.2d 221, 226 (1981) (citing Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471 (1963)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Short , 333 S.C. 473 , 511 S.E.2d 358 (1999), and State v. Collins , 329 S.C. 23 , 495 S.E.2d 202 (1998). Even if the arrest was illeg 2004(Flush this sh-- rip it up first) (Write me back). The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine holds that where evidence would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of that illegality, the evidence must be excluded. State v. Plath , 277 S.C. 126, 134 , 284 S.E.2d 221, 226 (1981) (citing Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471 (1963)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Short , 333 S.C. 473 , 511 S.E.2d 358 (1999), and State v. Collins , 329 S.C. 23 , 495 S.E.2d 202 (1998). Even if the arrest was illeg	1	2
Hutto v. Stategreen scctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021See Hutto v. State, 376 S.C. 77, 81 , 654 S.E.2d 846, 848 (2007) ("The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of that illegality." (quoting State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996))). 2021See Hutto v. State, 376 S.C. 77, 81 , 654 S.E.2d 846, 848 (2007) ("The 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of that illegality." (quoting State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996))).	1	1
In the Interest of Jeremiah W.green sc · 2004 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See In re Jeremiah W., 361 S.C. 620 , 624 n. 2, 606 S.E.2d 766 , 768 n. 2 (2004) ("The `fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine holds that evidence which is produced by or directly derived from an illegal search is generally inadmissible against the defendant because of its original taint."). 2010See In re Jeremiah W., 361 S.C. 620 , 624 n. 2, 606 S.E.2d 766 , 768 n. 2 (2004) ("The `fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine holds that evidence which is produced by or directly derived from an illegal search is generally inadmissible against the defendant because of its original taint.").	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Brownlee green ill · 1999 2 sentences 2005See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) (“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of the illegality.”); Robinson, 306 S.C. at 402 , 412 S.E.2d at 414 (suppressing drug evidence as the fruit of an unlawful stop because no attenuating circumstances removed the taint of the illegality from the consent to search); State v. Greene, 330 S.C. 551, 559 , 499 S.E.2d 817, 821 (Ct.App.1997) (“The fruit 2005See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) (“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of the illegality.”); Robinson, 306 S.C. at 402 , 412 S.E.2d at 414 (suppressing drug evidence as the fruit of an unlawful stop because no attenuating circumstances removed the taint of the illegality from the consent to search); State v. Greene, 330 S.C. 551, 559 , 499 S.E.2d 817, 821 (Ct.App.1997) (“The fruit	2	2002–2005
State v. Collins green sc · 1998 2 sentences 2004(Flush this sh-- rip it up first) (Write me back). The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine holds that where evidence would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of that illegality, the evidence must be excluded. State v. Plath , 277 S.C. 126, 134 , 284 S.E.2d 221, 226 (1981) (citing Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471 (1963)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Short , 333 S.C. 473 , 511 S.E.2d 358 (1999), and State v. Collins , 329 S.C. 23 , 495 S.E.2d 202 (1998). Even if the arrest was illeg 2004(Flush this sh-- rip it up first) (Write me back). The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine holds that where evidence would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of that illegality, the evidence must be excluded. State v. Plath , 277 S.C. 126, 134 , 284 S.E.2d 221, 226 (1981) (citing Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471 (1963)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Short , 333 S.C. 473 , 511 S.E.2d 358 (1999), and State v. Collins , 329 S.C. 23 , 495 S.E.2d 202 (1998). Even if the arrest was illeg	1	2004–2004
State v. Short green sc · 1999 2 sentences 2004(Flush this sh-- rip it up first) (Write me back). The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine holds that where evidence would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of that illegality, the evidence must be excluded. State v. Plath , 277 S.C. 126, 134 , 284 S.E.2d 221, 226 (1981) (citing Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471 (1963)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Short , 333 S.C. 473 , 511 S.E.2d 358 (1999), and State v. Collins , 329 S.C. 23 , 495 S.E.2d 202 (1998). Even if the arrest was illeg 2004(Flush this sh-- rip it up first) (Write me back). The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine holds that where evidence would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of that illegality, the evidence must be excluded. State v. Plath , 277 S.C. 126, 134 , 284 S.E.2d 221, 226 (1981) (citing Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471 (1963)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Short , 333 S.C. 473 , 511 S.E.2d 358 (1999), and State v. Collins , 329 S.C. 23 , 495 S.E.2d 202 (1998). Even if the arrest was illeg	1	2004–2004
State v. LaBarge green sc · 1980 2 sentences 2000The expiration date was not visible, however, without pulling the car over to examine the sticker. [17] See State v. LaBarge, 275 S.C. 168 , 268 S.E.2d 278 (1980) (noting that all presumptions of law are in favor of innocence until proven otherwise). [18] S.C.Code Ann. § 56-3-2420 (1991). [19] See United States v. Wilson, 205 F.3d 720 (4th Cir.2000) (holding that absent an articulable, reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct, the Fourth Amendment forbids stopping a car simply because it has a temporary tag). [20] See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) ("The `fru 2000The expiration date was not visible, however, without pulling the car over to examine the sticker. [17] See State v. LaBarge, 275 S.C. 168 , 268 S.E.2d 278 (1980) (noting that all presumptions of law are in favor of innocence until proven otherwise). [18] S.C.Code Ann. § 56-3-2420 (1991). [19] See United States v. Wilson, 205 F.3d 720 (4th Cir.2000) (holding that absent an articulable, reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct, the Fourth Amendment forbids stopping a car simply because it has a temporary tag). [20] See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) ("The `fru	1	2000–2000
United States v. Wiley Gene Wilson green ca4 · 2000 1 sentence 2000The expiration date was not visible, however, without pulling the car over to examine the sticker. [17] See State v. LaBarge, 275 S.C. 168 , 268 S.E.2d 278 (1980) (noting that all presumptions of law are in favor of innocence until proven otherwise). [18] S.C.Code Ann. § 56-3-2420 (1991). [19] See United States v. Wilson, 205 F.3d 720 (4th Cir.2000) (holding that absent an articulable, reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct, the Fourth Amendment forbids stopping a car simply because it has a temporary tag). [20] See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323 , 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) ("The `fru	1	2000–2000
State v. Funchess green sc · 1971 1 sentence 1981State v. Funchess, 255 S. C. 385, 179 S. E. (2d) 25 (1971); cert. denied, 404 U. S. 915 , 92 S. Ct. 236 , 30 L.	1	1981–1981
Funchess v. South Carolina green scotus · 1971 1 sentence 1981State v. Funchess, 255 S. C. 385, 179 S. E. (2d) 25 (1971); cert. denied, 404 U. S. 915 , 92 S. Ct. 236 , 30 L.	1	1981–1981
Horsford v. Carolina Glass Co. green · 1912 1 sentence 1981State v. Funchess, 255 S. C. 385, 179 S. E. (2d) 25 (1971); cert. denied, 404 U. S. 915 , 92 S. Ct. 236 , 30 L.	1	1981–1981

Where else courts name it

PA 73 (1975–2025) TX 57 (1977–2026) IN 55 (1987–2025) IL 46 (1970–2026) CA 45 (1967–2022) WA 43 (1971–2025) NM 41 (1977–2020) NY 37 (1967–2025) MD 36 (1969–2025) FL 34 (1969–2025) MA 33 (1981–2025) MI 31 (1973–2026) KS 30 (1975–2026) CO 27 (1980–2025) HI 23 (1964–2026) OH 22 (1969–2025) SC 20 (1981–2026) NJ 18 (1977–2024) WI 16 (1994–2025) NC 16 (1979–2021) CT 16 (1988–2025) VA 16 (1986–2026) MS 15 (1978–2026) TN 15 (1998–2020) SD 14 (1977–2024) IA 14 (1965–2022) GA 13 (1982–2026) MO 13 (1974–2009) OR 13 (1975–2015) NH 13 (1991–2025) WV 12 (1983–2015) LA 10 (1977–2025) AZ 10 (1972–2023) ID 9 (2000–2023) MT 9 (1979–2024) AL 7 (1973–2008) AR 6 (1979–2009) WY 5 (1976–2011) RI 4 (2014–2024) DE 4 (1990–2025) KY 4 (2011–2024) ND 3 (1979–2021) VT 3 (2007–2019) MN 3 (1986–1999) OK 3 (1973–2015) DC 3 (1977–2021) AK 2 (1973–1983) NV 2 (1976–2025) ME 2 (2000–2010) NE 2 (2008–2020)

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