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.
15 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Patanegreen2 sentences2020United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630, 639, 641-42, 644 (2004) (The police do not violate the Fifth Amendment or Miranda by negligent or even deliberate failures to 4 Simmons did not claim in the trial court, nor does he contend on appeal, that there was “actual coercion,” or that he was tortured. 2005Accord Patane, 542 U.S. at 636 , 124 S.Ct. at 2625-26 . | 4 | 4 |
Oregon v. Elstadgreen2 sentences2005Accord id. at 470 U.S. at 304 , 105 S.Ct. at 1290 . 2005Accord id. at 470 U.S. at 304 , 105 S.Ct. at 1290 . | 3 | 3 |
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1993As explained in the seminal case of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine excludes as direct evidence not only the direct products but also the indirect products of Fourth Amendment violations. 1993As explained in the seminal case of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine excludes as direct evidence not only the direct products but also the indirect products of Fourth Amendment violations. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2025Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484 (1963); Johnson, 939 S.W.2d at 588 (affirming suppression of evidence from subsequent searches as “fruit” of evidence obtained illegally by private citizens). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Matthew Massigreen1 sentence2025The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ answer, adopted from the Fifth Circuit’s consideration of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine and the federal exclusionary rule was: Two separate requirements must be met for evidence to be admissible: (1) the prior law enforcement conduct that uncovered evidence used in the affidavit for the warrant must be ‘close enough to the line of validity’ that an objectively reasonable officer preparing the affidavit or executing the warrant would believe that the information supporting the warrant[] was not tainted by unconstitutional conduct, and (2) the resu | 1 | 1 |
Nix v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2024See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 442–43, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 2508 (1984) (explaining that the purpose of fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine is to “deter 6 Pautenis argues that his statement is similar to the statement, “I think I want a lawyer,” which the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed “was a clear and unequivocal assertion” of the appellant’s right to counsel in Jones v. State. 742 S.W.2d 398 , 405–06 (Tex. Crim. 2024See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 442–43, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 2508 (1984) (explaining that the purpose of fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine is to “deter 6 Pautenis argues that his statement is similar to the statement, “I think I want a lawyer,” which the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed “was a clear and unequivocal assertion” of the appellant’s right to counsel in Jones v. State. 742 S.W.2d 398 , 405–06 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 442–43, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 2508 (1984) (explaining that the purpose of fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine is to “deter 6 Pautenis argues that his statement is similar to the statement, “I think I want a lawyer,” which the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed “was a clear and unequivocal assertion” of the appellant’s right to counsel in Jones v. State. 742 S.W.2d 398 , 405–06 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McClintock, Bradley Ray
green
2 sentences2025Article 38.23(a)’s statutory exclusionary rule “is broad enough to embrace the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine.” McClintock, 541 S.W.3d at 72 ; accord Day v. State, 614 S.W.3d 121 , 128 (Tex. Crim. 2025The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ answer, adopted from the Fifth Circuit’s consideration of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine and the federal exclusionary rule was: Two separate requirements must be met for evidence to be admissible: (1) the prior law enforcement conduct that uncovered evidence used in the affidavit for the warrant must be ‘close enough to the line of validity’ that an objectively reasonable officer preparing the affidavit or executing the warrant would believe that the information supporting the warrant[] was not tainted by unconstitutional conduct, and (2) the resu | 3 | 2019–2025 |
Patterson v. United States
green
2 sentences2005Stated another way, the State contends that the disregard of a suspect’s invocation of his right to counsel should not trigger the application of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine because under Patane the accidental failure to provide Miranda warnings does not. 17 The Supreme Court of the United States has not explicitly addressed the issue of whether fruits derivative of a voluntary, post failure-to-hon- or-a-request-for-counsel statement are admissible in the State’s case-in-chief, but numerous state and federal courts have, and they are split on the issue. 18 See Patterson v. United 2005Stated another way, the State contends that the disregard of a suspect’s invocation of his right to counsel should not trigger the application of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine because under Patane the accidental failure to provide Miranda warnings does not. 17 The Supreme Court of the United States has not explicitly addressed the issue of whether fruits derivative of a voluntary, post failure-to-hon- or-a-request-for-counsel statement are admissible in the State’s case-in-chief, but numerous state and federal courts have, and they are split on the issue. 18 See Patterson v. United | 3 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences2017But the Supreme Court has yet to address the question of how the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine should interact with the good-faith exception established by United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). 11 The lower federal courts are not entirely of one mind on this question, and it is a challenge to discern exactly what the state of the law is under the federal exclusionary rule. 2017But the Supreme Court has yet to address the question of how the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine should interact with the good-faith exception established by United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). 11 The lower federal courts are not entirely of one mind on this question, and it is a challenge to discern exactly what the state of the law is under the federal exclusionary rule. | 2 | 2017–2019 |
Woods v. State
green
2 sentences2020In this case, Appellant admitted to Heizer that he had an outstanding warrant from one jurisdiction; Heizer discovered a second 38 Woods, 153 S.W.3d at 414. 39 Id. at 414–15. 40 Id. 415–16. 41 York, 342 S.W.3d at 544 (discussing Woods, 153 S.W.3d at 414 ). 42 Id. 2020In this case, Appellant admitted to Heizer that he had an outstanding warrant from one jurisdiction; Heizer discovered a second 38 Woods, 153 S.W.3d at 414. 39 Id. at 414–15. 40 Id. 415–16. 41 York, 342 S.W.3d at 544 (discussing Woods, 153 S.W.3d at 414 ). 42 Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Tims v. State
green
2 sentences1997Coffman v. State, 26 Ark.App. 45 , 759 S.W.2d 573 (1988) (holding that an unlawful roadblock will not infect, because of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, the validity of a motorist's arrest when the motorist reverses direction in order to avoid the roadblock); Tims v. State, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 760 S.W.2d 78 (1988), modified on other grounds, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 770 S.W.2d 211 (1989) (attempt to avoid roadblock gave officers reasonable suspicion regardless of the constitutionality of the roadblock); State v. Binion, 900 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (motorist acting to avoid roadblock b 1997Coffman v. State, 26 Ark.App. 45 , 759 S.W.2d 573 (1988) (holding that an unlawful roadblock will not infect, because of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, the validity of a motorist's arrest when the motorist reverses direction in order to avoid the roadblock); Tims v. State, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 760 S.W.2d 78 (1988), modified on other grounds, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 770 S.W.2d 211 (1989) (attempt to avoid roadblock gave officers reasonable suspicion regardless of the constitutionality of the roadblock); State v. Binion, 900 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (motorist acting to avoid roadblock b | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Binion
green
2 sentences1997Coffman v. State, 26 Ark.App. 45 , 759 S.W.2d 573 (1988) (holding that an unlawful roadblock will not infect, because of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, the validity of a motorist’s arrest when the motorist reverses direction in order to avoid the roadblock); Tims v. State, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 760 S.W.2d 78 (1988), modified on other grounds, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 770 S.W.2d 211 (1989) (attempt to avoid roadblock gave officers reasonable suspicion regardless of the constitutionality of the roadblock); State v. Binion, 900 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (motorist acting to avoid roadblock b 1997Coffman v. State, 26 Ark.App. 45 , 759 S.W.2d 573 (1988) (holding that an unlawful roadblock will not infect, because of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, the validity of a motorist's arrest when the motorist reverses direction in order to avoid the roadblock); Tims v. State, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 760 S.W.2d 78 (1988), modified on other grounds, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 770 S.W.2d 211 (1989) (attempt to avoid roadblock gave officers reasonable suspicion regardless of the constitutionality of the roadblock); State v. Binion, 900 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (motorist acting to avoid roadblock b | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence1997Murphy v. State, 864 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1992, pet. ref'd.) (Onion, J., presiding) (holding that even if roadblock was illegal the officer’s observation of motorist and passenger switching places before entering the roadblock gave rise to reasonable suspicion justifying the stop); Johnson v. State, 833 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref d.) (holding that even if the roadblock is improper, officers may use evidence concerning a motorist’s reaction to the roadblock to justify a detention or arrest). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Tims v. State
green
2 sentences1997Coffman v. State, 26 Ark.App. 45 , 759 S.W.2d 573 (1988) (holding that an unlawful roadblock will not infect, because of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, the validity of a motorist’s arrest when the motorist reverses direction in order to avoid the roadblock); Tims v. State, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 760 S.W.2d 78 (1988), modified on other grounds, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 770 S.W.2d 211 (1989) (attempt to avoid roadblock gave officers reasonable suspicion regardless of the constitutionality of the roadblock); State v. Binion, 900 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (motorist acting to avoid roadblock b 1997Coffman v. State, 26 Ark.App. 45 , 759 S.W.2d 573 (1988) (holding that an unlawful roadblock will not infect, because of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, the validity of a motorist's arrest when the motorist reverses direction in order to avoid the roadblock); Tims v. State, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 760 S.W.2d 78 (1988), modified on other grounds, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 770 S.W.2d 211 (1989) (attempt to avoid roadblock gave officers reasonable suspicion regardless of the constitutionality of the roadblock); State v. Binion, 900 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (motorist acting to avoid roadblock b | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Murphy v. State
green
2 sentences1997Murphy v. State, 864 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1992, pet. ref'd.) (Onion, J., presiding) (holding that even if roadblock was illegal the officer’s observation of motorist and passenger switching places before entering the roadblock gave rise to reasonable suspicion justifying the stop); Johnson v. State, 833 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref d.) (holding that even if the roadblock is improper, officers may use evidence concerning a motorist’s reaction to the roadblock to justify a detention or arrest). 1997Murphy v. State, 864 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1992, pet. ref'd.) (Onion, J., presiding) (holding that even if roadblock was illegal the officer's observation of motorist and passenger switching places before entering the roadblock gave rise to reasonable suspicion justifying the stop); Johnson v. State, 833 *455 S.W.2d 320 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref'd.) (holding that even if the roadblock is improper, officers may use evidence concerning a motorist's reaction to the roadblock to justify a detention or arrest). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Coffman v. State
green
2 sentences1997Coffman v. State, 26 Ark.App. 45 , 759 S.W.2d 573 (1988) (holding that an unlawful roadblock will not infect, because of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, the validity of a motorist's arrest when the motorist reverses direction in order to avoid the roadblock); Tims v. State, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 760 S.W.2d 78 (1988), modified on other grounds, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 770 S.W.2d 211 (1989) (attempt to avoid roadblock gave officers reasonable suspicion regardless of the constitutionality of the roadblock); State v. Binion, 900 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (motorist acting to avoid roadblock b 1997Coffman v. State, 26 Ark.App. 45 , 759 S.W.2d 573 (1988) (holding that an unlawful roadblock will not infect, because of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, the validity of a motorist's arrest when the motorist reverses direction in order to avoid the roadblock); Tims v. State, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 760 S.W.2d 78 (1988), modified on other grounds, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 770 S.W.2d 211 (1989) (attempt to avoid roadblock gave officers reasonable suspicion regardless of the constitutionality of the roadblock); State v. Binion, 900 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (motorist acting to avoid roadblock b | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Stroud v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1997Coffman v. State, 26 Ark.App. 45 , 759 S.W.2d 573 (1988) (holding that an unlawful roadblock will not infect, because of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, the validity of a motorist's arrest when the motorist reverses direction in order to avoid the roadblock); Tims v. State, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 760 S.W.2d 78 (1988), modified on other grounds, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 770 S.W.2d 211 (1989) (attempt to avoid roadblock gave officers reasonable suspicion regardless of the constitutionality of the roadblock); State v. Binion, 900 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (motorist acting to avoid roadblock b 1997Coffman v. State, 26 Ark.App. 45 , 759 S.W.2d 573 (1988) (holding that an unlawful roadblock will not infect, because of the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, the validity of a motorist's arrest when the motorist reverses direction in order to avoid the roadblock); Tims v. State, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 760 S.W.2d 78 (1988), modified on other grounds, 26 Ark.App. 102 , 770 S.W.2d 211 (1989) (attempt to avoid roadblock gave officers reasonable suspicion regardless of the constitutionality of the roadblock); State v. Binion, 900 S.W.2d 702 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994) (motorist acting to avoid roadblock b | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.