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.
14 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Helmergreen2 sentences2019Two Hearts also argues that even if his March 31 statements were voluntary, they should be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine because the only intervening event between the interviews “was the passage of time.” See State v. Helmer, 1996 S.D. 31, ¶ 32 , 545 N.W.2d 471, 476 (“When preceding confessions or statements are inadmissible, subsequent statements are not automatically inadmissible, but they are suspect.”). 2019Two Hearts also argues that even if his March 31 statements were voluntary, they should be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine because the only intervening event between the interviews “was the passage of time.” See State v. Helmer, 1996 S.D. 31, ¶ 32 , 545 N.W.2d 471, 476 (“When preceding confessions or statements are inadmissible, subsequent statements are not automatically inadmissible, but they are suspect.”). | 2 | 3 |
Satter v. Solemgreen2 sentences2019However, “the progenitor of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine”—Wong Sun— “recognized that original lawless conduct would not taint all evidence forever.” Satter v. Solem, 458 N.W.2d 762, 768 (S.D. 1990). 2013However, “[e]ven Wong Sun, the progenitor of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, recognized that original lawless conduct would not taint all evidence forever.” Satter v. Solem, 458 N.W.2d 762, 768 (S.D.1990). | 2 | 2 |
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996The statement at issue was found involuntary and the case was remanded to the habeas court for determination of the effects of the statement under the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” announced in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). 1996The statement at issue was found involuntary and the case was remanded to the habeas court for determination of the effects of the statement under the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” announced in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Heneygreen2 sentences2016However, “ ‘but-for causality is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for suppression’ under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” Id. (quoting Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 592 , 126 S.Ct. 2159, 2164 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006)). 2016However, “‘but-for causality is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for suppression’ under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” Id. (quoting Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 592 , 126 S. Ct. 2159, 2164 , 165 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mousseauxgreen2 sentences2024See e.g., Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 15, 839 N.W.2d at 563 (independent source doctrine); State v. Smith, 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 25, 851 N.W.2d 719, 726 (inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Mousseaux, 2020 S.D. 35, ¶ 14 , 945 N.W.2d 548, 552 (attenuation doctrine). -12- #30023 [¶24.] The circuit court acknowledged all three exceptions to the exclusionary rule and noted the State’s argument that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies under the circumstances. 2024See e.g., Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 15, 839 N.W.2d at 563 (independent source doctrine); State v. Smith, 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 25, 851 N.W.2d 719, 726 (inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Mousseaux, 2020 S.D. 35, ¶ 14 , 945 N.W.2d 548, 552 (attenuation doctrine). -12- #30023 [¶24.] The circuit court acknowledged all three exceptions to the exclusionary rule and noted the State’s argument that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies under the circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2024See e.g., Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 15, 839 N.W.2d at 563 (independent source doctrine); State v. Smith, 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 25, 851 N.W.2d 719, 726 (inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Mousseaux, 2020 S.D. 35, ¶ 14 , 945 N.W.2d 548, 552 (attenuation doctrine). -12- #30023 [¶24.] The circuit court acknowledged all three exceptions to the exclusionary rule and noted the State’s argument that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies under the circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hessgreen1 sentence2013Standard of Review [¶ 8.] “A motion to suppress for an alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right raises a question of law, requiring de novo review.” State v. Hess, 2004 S.D. 60 , ¶ 9, 680 N.W.2d 314, 319 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hudson v. Michigan
green
2 sentences2016However, “ ‘but-for causality is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for suppression’ under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” Id. (quoting Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 592 , 126 S.Ct. 2159, 2164 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006)). 2016However, “ ‘but-for causality is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for suppression’ under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” Id. (quoting Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 592 , 126 S.Ct. 2159, 2164 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006)). | 2 | 2013–2016 |
Satter v. Solem
green
2 sentences1990Our opinion in Satter III was clear on this issue: “What then is the effect of these involuntary admissions on Satter’s convictions in light of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine[.]’ ” (Emphasis added.) 434 N.W.2d at 728 . 1990Our opinion in Satter III was clear on this issue: "What then is the effect of these involuntary admissions on Satter's convictions in light of the `fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine[.]'" (Emphasis added.) 434 N.W.2d at 728 . | 2 | 1990–1996 |
United States v. Ceccolini
green
2 sentences2019“The question becomes whether ‘the connection between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the challenged evidence has “become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.”’” Id. (quoting United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 , 273–74, 98 S. Ct. 1054, 1059 , 55 L. 2019“The question becomes whether ‘the connection between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the challenged evidence has “become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.”’” Id. (quoting United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 , 273–74, 98 S. Ct. 1054, 1059 , 55 L. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Boll
green
1 sentence2016“The primary focus of our analysis is ‘whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ ” Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 12, 839 N.W.2d at 562 -63 (quoting Boll, 2002 S.D. 114 , ¶ 32, 651 N.W.2d at 719 ). [¶ 23.] In its findings of fact on McCah-reris motion to suppress T.D.’s statements, the circuit court found: T.D. and MeCah-ren wqre placed together based on the availability of cells, and the roommate assi | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Nix v. Williams
green
2 sentences2013Application of the exclusionary rule should strike a balance between “the interest of society in deterring unlawful police conduct and the public interest in having juries receive all probative evidence of a crime[.]” See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). [¶ 10.] On appeal, the parties do not dispute the illegality of the initial search in room 212, or the trial court’s suppression of evidence found in room 212 during that initial search. 2013Application of the exclusionary rule should strike a balance between “the interest of society in deterring unlawful police conduct and the public interest in having juries receive all probative evidence of a crime[.]” See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). [¶ 10.] On appeal, the parties do not dispute the illegality of the initial search in room 212, or the trial court’s suppression of evidence found in room 212 during that initial search. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
United States v. Jacobsen
green
2 sentences1984Recently, in United States v. Jacobsen, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1652 , 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984), the Supreme Court held that Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures proscribed only governmental action. 1984Recently, in United States v. Jacobsen, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1652 , 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984), the Supreme Court held that Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures proscribed only governmental action. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Pierson
green
2 sentences1977Brown v. Illinois, 1975, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 ; State v. Pierson, 1976, S.D., 248 N.W.2d 48 (Dunn, C. 1977Brown v. Illinois, 1975, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 ; State v. Pierson, 1976, S.D., 248 N.W.2d 48 (Dunn, C. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1977Brown v. Illinois, 1975, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 ; State v. Pierson, 1976, S.D., 248 N.W.2d 48 (Dunn, C. 1977Brown v. Illinois, 1975, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 ; State v. Pierson, 1976, S.D., 248 N.W.2d 48 (Dunn, C. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.