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.
18 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Miguel A. Espinozagreen2 sentences2019The purposes of the exclusionary rule are to “deter illegal police conduct by punishing the behavior and removing the incentive for its repetition.” Id. at 724 . ¶ 36 Defendant argues in response that the State has waived any contention regarding the application of the exclusionary rule by failing to make the argument in the trial court. 2019The purposes of the exclusionary rule are to “deter illegal police conduct by punishing the behavior and removing the incentive for its repetition.” Id. at 724 . ¶ 36 Defendant argues in response that the State has waived any contention regarding the application of the exclusionary rule by failing to make the argument in the trial court. | 2 | 2 |
Boruschewitz v. Kirtsgreen2 sentences2000First, by excluding illegally obtained evidence, it provides an additional deterrent to would-be eavesdroppers beyond the threat of criminal prosecution and supports the basic principle that no one should benefit from an illegal act (see Boruschewitz v. Kirts, 197 Ill. 2000First, by excluding illegally obtained evidence, it provides an additional deterrent to would-be eavesdroppers beyond the threat of criminal prosecution and supports the basic principle that no one should benefit from an illegal act (see Boruschewitz v. Kirts, 197 Ill.App.3d 619, 623-24 , 144 Ill.Dec. 73 , 554 N.E.2d 1112 (1990)). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Josephgreen2 sentences1986See also People v. Joseph (1984), 128 Ill. 1986See also People v. Joseph (1984), 128 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Weeks v. United Statesred2 sentences1983See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 391-93 , 34 S. Ct. 341 , 58 L. 1983See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 391-93 , 34 S. Ct. 341 , 58 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences2019We also recognize that “suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant - 16 - should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 918 . ¶ 71 This is such an unusual case. 2018We also recognize that "suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule." Leon , 468 U.S. at 918 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 . ¶ 71 This is such an unusual case. | 6 | 1984–2019 |
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2004Brown v. Illinois , 422 U.S. 590 , 45 L. 2004Brown v. Illinois , 422 U.S. 590 , 45 L. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Dunaway v. New York
green
2 sentences2004Courts require exclusion of evidence illegally seized “to deter similar police misconduct in the future *** [and to protect] the integrity of the courts.” Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 218 , 60 L. 2004Courts require exclusion of evidence illegally seized “to deter similar police misconduct in the future *** [and to protect] the integrity of the courts.” Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 218 , 60 L. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Stewart
green
2 sentences1980(See, e.g., In re Donaldson (1969), 269 Cal. App. 2d 509 , 75 Cal. Rptr. 220 ; People v. Stewart (1970), 63 Misc. 2d 601 , 313 N.Y.S.2d 253 ; Mercer v. State (Tex. Civ. 1980(See, e.g., In re Donaldson (1969), 269 Cal. App. 2d 509 , 75 Cal. Rptr. 220 ; People v. Stewart (1970), 63 Misc. 2d 601 , 313 N.Y.S.2d 253 ; Mercer v. State (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 1980–1980 |
Mercer v. Donaldson
green
2 sentences1980(See, e.g., In re Donaldson (1969), 269 Cal. App. 2d 509 , 75 Cal. Rptr. 220 ; People v. Stewart (1970), 63 Misc. 2d 601 , 313 N.Y.S.2d 253 ; Mercer v. State (Tex. Civ. 1980(See, e.g., In re Donaldson (1969), 269 Cal. App. 2d 509 , 75 Cal. Rptr. 220 ; People v. Stewart (1970), 63 Misc. 2d 601 , 313 N.Y.S.2d 253 ; Mercer v. State (Tex. Civ. | 2 | 1980–1980 |
United States v. Peltier
green
2 sentences1980In Peltier the court reasoned that retro-activity would not serve the purposes of the exclusionary rule where the border patrols had acted in good-faith reliance on the then prevailing constitutional standard and in compliance with an existing Federal statute. 422 U.S. 531, 540-42 , 45 L. 1980In Peltier the court reasoned that retro-activity would not serve the purposes of the exclusionary rule where the border patrols had acted in good-faith reliance on the then prevailing constitutional standard and in compliance with an existing Federal statute. 422 U.S. 531, 540-42 , 45 L. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.