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.
16 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2008The exclusionary rule may operate to suppress derivative evidence, such as Popenhagen's statements, when a constitutional violation has occurred "under certain circumstances, via the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, if such evidence is obtained 'by exploitation of... illegality.'" State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, ¶ 24 , 285 Wis. 2d 86 , 700 N.W.2d 899 (hereinafter referred to as Knapp II) 18 (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485-88 (1963)). 2008The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is designed to " 'deter future unlawful police conduct.'" Id., ¶ 22 (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 (1974)). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Knappgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, ¶24 , 285 Wis. 2d 86 , 700 N.W.2d 899 (“The exclusionary rule applies to both tangible 11 No. 2020AP1813-CR and intangible evidence and also excludes derivative evidence under certain circumstances, via the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, if such evidence is obtained ‘by exploitation of that illegality.’” (citation omitted)). 2024See State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, ¶24 , 285 Wis. 2d 86 , 700 N.W.2d 899 (“The exclusionary rule applies to both tangible 11 No. 2020AP1813-CR and intangible evidence and also excludes derivative evidence under certain circumstances, via the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, if such evidence is obtained ‘by exploitation of that illegality.’” (citation omitted)). | 2 | 8 |
Nix v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2005The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine has been applied to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, see Nix, 467 U.S. at 442 , as well as statutory violations. ¶ 26. 2005The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine has been applied to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, see Nix, 467 U.S. at 442 , as well as statutory violations. *99 ¶ 26. | 2 | 3 |
County of Ozaukee v. Quellegreen2 sentences2023See County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 280 , 542 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by Washburn County v. Smith, 2008 WI 23, ¶64 , 308 Wis. 2d 65 , 746 N.W.2d 243 . 11 No. 2020AP1734 evidence which is the product of or which owes its discovery to illegal government activity.” State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, ¶24 , 285 Wis. 2d 86 , 700 N.W.2d 899 (citation omitted). ¶25 In this case, the blood test results clearly owed their discovery to the inadmissible breath test results. 2023See County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 280 , 542 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by Washburn County v. Smith, 2008 WI 23, ¶64 , 308 Wis. 2d 65 , 746 N.W.2d 243 . 11 No. 2020AP1734 evidence which is the product of or which owes its discovery to illegal government activity.” State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, ¶24 , 285 Wis. 2d 86 , 700 N.W.2d 899 (citation omitted). ¶25 In this case, the blood test results clearly owed their discovery to the inadmissible breath test results. | 1 | 1 |
Washburn County v. Smithgreen2 sentences2023See County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 280 , 542 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by Washburn County v. Smith, 2008 WI 23, ¶64 , 308 Wis. 2d 65 , 746 N.W.2d 243 . 11 No. 2020AP1734 evidence which is the product of or which owes its discovery to illegal government activity.” State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, ¶24 , 285 Wis. 2d 86 , 700 N.W.2d 899 (citation omitted). ¶25 In this case, the blood test results clearly owed their discovery to the inadmissible breath test results. 2023See County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 280 , 542 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by Washburn County v. Smith, 2008 WI 23, ¶64 , 308 Wis. 2d 65 , 746 N.W.2d 243 . 11 No. 2020AP1734 evidence which is the product of or which owes its discovery to illegal government activity.” State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, ¶24 , 285 Wis. 2d 86 , 700 N.W.2d 899 (citation omitted). ¶25 In this case, the blood test results clearly owed their discovery to the inadmissible breath test results. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Yen Yanggreen2 sentences2008See also State v. Yang, 2000 WI App 63, ¶ 20 , 233 Wis. 2d 545 , 608 N.W.2d 703 (stating that United States Supreme Court, "[i]n Elstad, the Court examined the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and determined that it only applies to a constitutional violation"); State v. Noble, 2002 WI 64, ¶¶ 7, 13, 29-31 , 253 Wis. 2d 206 , 646 N.W.2d 38 ; but see Muetze v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 117, 134-35 , 243 N.W.2d 393 (1976) (applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to a statutory privilege violation that led to obtaining a search warrant without probable cause once the privileged information wa 2008See also State v. Yang, 2000 WI App 63, ¶ 20 , 233 Wis. 2d 545 , 608 N.W.2d 703 (stating that United States Supreme Court, "[i]n Elstad, the Court examined the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and determined that it only applies to a constitutional violation"); State v. Noble, 2002 WI 64, ¶¶ 7, 13, 29-31 , 253 Wis. 2d 206 , 646 N.W.2d 38 ; but see Muetze v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 117, 134-35 , 243 N.W.2d 393 (1976) (applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to a statutory privilege violation that led to obtaining a search warrant without probable cause once the privileged information wa | 1 | 1 |
State v. Noblegreen2 sentences2008See also State v. Yang, 2000 WI App 63, ¶ 20 , 233 Wis. 2d 545 , 608 N.W.2d 703 (stating that United States Supreme Court, "[i]n Elstad, the Court examined the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and determined that it only applies to a constitutional violation"); State v. Noble, 2002 WI 64, ¶¶ 7, 13, 29-31 , 253 Wis. 2d 206 , 646 N.W.2d 38 ; but see Muetze v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 117, 134-35 , 243 N.W.2d 393 (1976) (applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to a statutory privilege violation that led to obtaining a search warrant without probable cause once the privileged information wa 2008See also State v. Yang, 2000 WI App 63, ¶ 20 , 233 Wis. 2d 545 , 608 N.W.2d 703 (stating that United States Supreme Court, "[i]n Elstad, the Court examined the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and determined that it only applies to a constitutional violation"); State v. Noble, 2002 WI 64, ¶¶ 7, 13, 29-31 , 253 Wis. 2d 206 , 646 N.W.2d 38 ; but see Muetze v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 117, 134-35 , 243 N.W.2d 393 (1976) (applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to a statutory privilege violation that led to obtaining a search warrant without probable cause once the privileged information wa | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Calandragreen2 sentences2008The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is designed to "`deter future unlawful police conduct.'" Id., ¶ 22 (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 , 94 S.Ct. 613 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974)). 2008The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is designed to " 'deter future unlawful police conduct.'" Id., ¶ 22 (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 (1974)). | 1 | 1 |
Chavez v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2005Regarding Fifth Amendment applications, in Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 769 (2003) (plurality opinion), the Supreme Court noted that "our cases provide that those subjected to coercive police interrogations have an automatic protection from the use of their involuntary statements (or evidence derived from their statements) in any subsequent criminal trial." (Emphasis in original.) ¶ 27. 2005Regarding Fifth Amendment applications, in Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 769 (2003) (plurality opinion), the Supreme Court noted that "our cases provide that those subjected to coercive police interrogations have an automatic protection from the use of their involuntary statements (or evidence derived from their statements) in any subsequent criminal trial." (Emphasis in original.) ¶ 27. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Frank Desumma, A/K/A Doc, Frank Desummagreen2 sentences2003United States v. DeSumma, 272 F.3d 176, 180-181 (3d Cir. 2001). [11] The Fourth Circuit concluded that Dickerson did not provide a persuasive basis for overruling its prior decision in United States v. Elie, 111 F.3d 1135 (4th Cir. 1997), which had declined to extend the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to statements obtained in violation of Miranda . 2003United States v. DeSumma, 272 F.3d 176, 180-181 (3d Cir. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ricky G. Sterlinggreen2 sentences2003United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216, 218-19 (4th Cir. 2002). [12] Wisconsin Const. art. 2003United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216, 218-19 (4th Cir. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Kastigar v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 442 (1984), and Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Muetze v. Stategreen2 sentences2025“Unless an exception applies, a search without a warrant is per se unreasonable.” Smiter, 331 Wis. 2d 431, ¶10 . “[T]he ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine requires the exclusion of the evidence obtained by exploitation of an illegal search and seizure[.]” Muetze v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 117, 130 , 243 N.W.2d 393 (1976). 2025“Unless an exception applies, a search without a warrant is per se unreasonable.” Smiter, 331 Wis. 2d 431, ¶10 . “[T]he ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine requires the exclusion of the evidence obtained by exploitation of an illegal search and seizure[.]” Muetze v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 117, 130 , 243 N.W.2d 393 (1976). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Patane
green
2 sentences2021In addressing that issue, the Knapp court acknowledged that a plurality of the United States Supreme Court had recently held in United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004), that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did not extend to derivative evidence discovered as a result of a defendant’s voluntary statements obtained without Miranda warnings. 2013For example, in United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004), the Supreme Court concluded that "the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not extend to derivative evidence discovered as a result of a defendant's voluntary statements obtained without Miranda warnings." State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, ¶ 1 , 285 Wis. 2d 86 , 700 N.W.2d 899 . | 4 | 2005–2021 |
State v. Schlise
green
2 sentences2019After failing to make contact with the brothers at their home, their mother informed the officers that the brothers were together at Merlin Metoxen’s home, which was located “less than a minute” 1 “[I]n its broadest sense, the [fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine] can be regarded ... as a device to prohibit the use of any secondary evidence which is the product of or which owes its discovery to illegal government activity.” State v. Schlise, 86 Wis. 2d 26, 45 , 271 N.W.2d 619 (1978). 2 No. 2018AP1051-CR away. 2019After failing to make contact with the brothers at their home, their mother informed the officers that the brothers were together at Merlin Metoxen’s home, which was located “less than a minute” 1 “[I]n its broadest sense, the [fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine] can be regarded ... as a device to prohibit the use of any secondary evidence which is the product of or which owes its discovery to illegal government activity.” State v. Schlise, 86 Wis. 2d 26, 45 , 271 N.W.2d 619 (1978). 2 No. 2018AP1051-CR away. | 2 | 2005–2019 |
Michigan v. Tucker
green
2 sentences2003Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 2-3 n.1 (1964). [9] Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), and Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974). [10] The Third Circuit concluded that Dickerson had not abrogated or overruled Elstad's principle that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did not extend to violations of Miranda. 2000It concedes there is no controlling United States Supreme Court or Wisconsin appellate decision, 9 but claims that *562 Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974), and Elstad "plainly teach that the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine has no application to physical evidence . . . discovered as the result of statements obtained in violation of Miranda." Yang counters that revealing the firearm's location was testimonial in nature and flowed directly from the Miranda violation. | 2 | 2000–2003 |
State v. Smiter
green
1 sentence2025“Unless an exception applies, a search without a warrant is per se unreasonable.” Smiter, 331 Wis. 2d 431, ¶10 . “[T]he ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine requires the exclusion of the evidence obtained by exploitation of an illegal search and seizure[.]” Muetze v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 117, 130 , 243 N.W.2d 393 (1976). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Mastella L. Jackson
green
2 sentences2025However, evidence obtained during an illegal 7 No. 2023AP1297-CR search “may be admissible if the tainted evidence would have been inevitably discovered by lawful means.” State v. Jackson, 2016 WI 56, ¶47 , 369 Wis. 2d 673 , 882 N.W.2d 422 (citation omitted). ¶16 While the general rationale to exclude tainted evidence acquired through police misconduct, as well as evidence derived from that evidence, is to “deter police from violations of constitutional and statutory protections[,]” the “[e]xclusion of physical evidence that would inevitably have been discovered adds nothing to either the inte 2025However, evidence obtained during an illegal 7 No. 2023AP1297-CR search “may be admissible if the tainted evidence would have been inevitably discovered by lawful means.” State v. Jackson, 2016 WI 56, ¶47 , 369 Wis. 2d 673 , 882 N.W.2d 422 (citation omitted). ¶16 While the general rationale to exclude tainted evidence acquired through police misconduct, as well as evidence derived from that evidence, is to “deter police from violations of constitutional and statutory protections[,]” the “[e]xclusion of physical evidence that would inevitably have been discovered adds nothing to either the inte | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Nardone v. United States
green
2 sentences2005In Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , (1939), the Supreme Court held that facts illegally obtained from a wiretap under the Communications Act could not be used at trial. 2005In Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , (1939), the Supreme Court held that facts illegally obtained from a wiretap under the Communications Act could not be used at trial. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Schneidewind
green
2 sentences2005The exclusionary rule applies to both tangible and intangible evidence and also excludes derivative evidence under certain circumstances, via the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, if such evidence is obtained "by exploitation of that illegality." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485-88 (1963); State v. Schneidewind, 47 Wis. 2d 110, 118 , 176 N.W.2d 303 (1970). "[I]n its broadest sense, the [fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine] can be regarded... as a device to prohibit the use of any secondary evidence which is the product of or which owes its discovery to illegal government activ 2005The exclusionary rule applies to both tangible and intangible evidence and also excludes derivative evidence under certain circumstances, via the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, if such evidence is obtained "by exploitation of that illegality." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485-88 (1963); State v. Schneidewind, 47 Wis. 2d 110, 118 , 176 N.W.2d 303 (1970). "[I]n its broadest sense, the [fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine] can be regarded... as a device to prohibit the use of any secondary evidence which is the product of or which owes its discovery to illegal government activ | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Oregon v. Elstad
green
1 sentence2003Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 2-3 n.1 (1964). [9] Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), and Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974). [10] The Third Circuit concluded that Dickerson had not abrogated or overruled Elstad's principle that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did not extend to violations of Miranda. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Patane
green
2 sentences2003Patane, 304 F.3d at 1023-24 . 2003Patane, 304 F.3d at 1023-24 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Malloy v. Hogan
green
1 sentence2003Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , 2-3 n.1 (1964). [9] Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985), and Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974). [10] The Third Circuit concluded that Dickerson had not abrogated or overruled Elstad's principle that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did not extend to violations of Miranda. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Patrick Elie A/K/A Patrick Gerald Elie, A/K/A Marie Patrick Elie
green
2 sentences2003United States v. DeSumma, 272 F.3d 176, 180-181 (3d Cir. 2001). [11] The Fourth Circuit concluded that Dickerson did not provide a persuasive basis for overruling its prior decision in United States v. Elie, 111 F.3d 1135 (4th Cir. 1997), which had declined to extend the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to statements obtained in violation of Miranda . 2003The Fourth Circuit concluded that Dickerson did not provide a persuasive basis for overruling its prior decision in United States v. Elie, 111 F.3d 1135 (4th Cir. 1997), which had declined to extend the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to statements obtained in violation of Miranda. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Esser
green
2 sentences1994These conclusions flow from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Elstad and from state *171 and federal decisions applying Elstad to questions involving the admissibility of derivative evidence. 10 The State cites State v. Esser, 166 Wis. 2d 897 , 905 n.5, 480 N.W.2d 541 , 544 n.5 (Ct. App. 1992), for this court's authority to do so. 1994These conclusions flow from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Elstad and from state *171 and federal decisions applying Elstad to questions involving the admissibility of derivative evidence. 10 The State cites State v. Esser, 166 Wis. 2d 897 , 905 n.5, 480 N.W.2d 541 , 544 n.5 (Ct. App. 1992), for this court's authority to do so. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.