14 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa 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 sentences1969His argument is apparently premised on the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine as discussed by the Supreme Court in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 , to which defendant has .cited* us. i >*ii Laying aside the fact that both Nardone and Wong Sun were concerned with Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore not persuasive authority for defendant’s claim he has been denied rights guaranteed him under the Fifth Amendment, we are still not persuaded his argument has merit. 1969His argument is apparently premised on the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine as discussed by the Supreme Court in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 , to which defendant has .cited* us. i >*ii Laying aside the fact that both Nardone and Wong Sun were concerned with Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore not persuasive authority for defendant’s claim he has been denied rights guaranteed him under the Fifth Amendment, we are still not persuaded his argument has merit. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Bergmanngreen2 sentences2021See State v. Bergmann, 633 N.W.2d 328, 333 (Iowa 2001) (“The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine bars evidence found in subsequent searches only when the evidence was found by virtue of the first illegality.”). 13 III. 2014See State v. Bergmann, 633 N.W.2d 328, 333 (Iowa 2001) (“The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine bars evidence found in subsequent searches only when the evidence was found by virtue of the first illegality.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lanegreen2 sentences2012Thus, there are two issues to analyze in a consent-to-search case such as this: (1) voluntariness under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) exploitation under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” State v. Lane, 726 N.W.2d 371, 377 (Iowa 2007) (citations omitted). 2012Thus, there are two issues to analyze in a consent-to-search case such as this: (1) voluntariness under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) exploitation under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” State v. Lane, 726 N.W.2d 371, 377 (Iowa 2007) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Fidel Robeles-Ortega, Also Known as Fidel Robles-Ortega, Also Known as Fidel Ortiz-Rolbouesgreen1 sentence2007Washington, 387 F.3d at 1074 ; see also Robeles-Ortega, 348 F.3d at 683–84 (finding an agreement to sign a consent form distinct from other types of intervening circumstances 4Treating the consent as an intervening circumstance would be tantamount to treating it as a “means sufficiently distinguishable” under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Nix v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1996Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 442-43 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2508 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377, 386-87 (1984). 1996Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 442-43 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2508 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377, 386-87 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dawdy
green
2 sentences2022Id. 2022Id. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Reinier
green
2 sentences2007In Reinier we stated the question of exploitation, as applied to consent cases, was whether the government had “establish[ed] a break in the illegal action and the evidence subsequently obtained under the so-called ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine.” 628 N.W.2d at 467 -68 n. 3 (emphasis added). 2007In Reinier we stated the question of exploitation, as applied to consent cases, was whether the government had “establish[ed] a break in the illegal action and the evidence subsequently obtained under the so-called ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine.” 628 N.W.2d at 467–68 n.3 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Manuel Melendez-Garcia
green
1 sentence2007The court then set forth its true intentions and "reiterate[d] that not only must the government show that consent is voluntary in fact, but it must also demonstrate a break in the causal connection between the illegality and the consent." Id. [4] Treating the consent as an intervening circumstance would be tantamount to treating it as a "means sufficiently distinguishable" under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Ronald Berry Washington
green
1 sentence2007Washington, 387 F.3d at 1074 ; see also Robeles-Ortega, 348 F.3d at 683–84 (finding an agreement to sign a consent form distinct from other types of intervening circumstances 4Treating the consent as an intervening circumstance would be tantamount to treating it as a “means sufficiently distinguishable” under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Hagen
green
2 sentences1976The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is to the effect that unlawful search taints not only evidence obtained by the search but facts discovered by process initiated by the unlawful act.” State v. Hagen, 258 Iowa 196, 205 , 137 N.W.2d 895, 900 . 1976The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is to the effect that unlawful search taints not only evidence obtained by the search but facts discovered by process initiated by the unlawful act.” State v. Hagen, 258 Iowa 196, 205 , 137 N.W.2d 895, 900 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Nardone v. United States
green
2 sentences1969His argument is apparently premised on the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine as discussed by the Supreme Court in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 , to which defendant has .cited* us. i >*ii Laying aside the fact that both Nardone and Wong Sun were concerned with Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore not persuasive authority for defendant’s claim he has been denied rights guaranteed him under the Fifth Amendment, we are still not persuaded his argument has merit. 1969His argument is apparently premised on the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine as discussed by the Supreme Court in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 , to which defendant has .cited* us. i >*ii Laying aside the fact that both Nardone and Wong Sun were concerned with Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore not persuasive authority for defendant’s claim he has been denied rights guaranteed him under the Fifth Amendment, we are still not persuaded his argument has merit. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
United States v. Antranik Paroutian
green
1 sentence1965United States v. Avila, Cal. (1963), 227 F. Supp. 3, 6 ; United States v. Paroutian, 2 Cir., 299 F.2d 486, 489 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
United States v. Avila
green
1 sentence1965United States v. Avila, Cal. (1963), 227 F. Supp. 3, 6 ; United States v. Paroutian, 2 Cir., 299 F.2d 486, 489 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.