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.
95 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1949–2024 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana 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 sentences2009Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 485 , 83 S. Ct. at 416 . ¶24 The exclusionary rule is not without exception. 2009Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 485 , 83 S. Ct. at 416 . ¶24 The exclusionary rule is not without exception. | 7 | 11 |
State v. Longgreen2 sentences2022See also State v. Malkuch, 2007 MT 60, ¶ 13 , 336 Mont. 219 , 154 P.3d 558 (2007) (“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to ‘deter illegal police conduct and to preserve judicial integrity.’”—quoting State v. Long, 216 Mont. 65, 71 , 700 P.2d 153, 157 (1985)). 2022See also State v. Malkuch, 2007 MT 60, ¶ 13 , 336 Mont. 219 , 154 P.3d 558 (2007) (“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to ‘deter illegal police conduct and to preserve judicial integrity.’”—quoting State v. Long, 216 Mont. 65, 71 , 700 P.2d 153, 157 (1985)). | 5 | 8 |
Elkins v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002See Elkins v. U.S., (1960), 364 U.S. 206, 217-24 , 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1444-47 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669, 1677-80 . 2002See Elkins v. U.S., (1960), 364 U.S. 206, 217-24 , 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1444-47 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669, 1677-80 . | 4 | 4 |
State v. Ottwellgreen2 sentences2021Kroschel, ¶ 36; State v. Ottwell, 239 Mont. 150, 154 , 779 P.2d 500, 502 (1989) (explaining that the exclusionary rule bars all resulting evidence as “fruit of the poisonous tree”). 2021Kroschel, ¶ 36; State v. Ottwell, 239 Mont. 150, 154 , 779 P.2d 500, 502 (1989) (explaining that the exclusionary rule bars all resulting evidence as “fruit of the poisonous tree”). | 3 | 6 |
State v. Christensengreen2 sentences2021In State v. Christensen, 244 Mont. 312, 319 , 797 P.2d 893, 897 (1990), we addressed the question Long did not resolve, stating that "the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence resulting from the conduct of private individuals, even if felonious, unless that conduct involves state action." ¶8 Hofinan does not argue that C.S.'s recording of her phone call involved any state action. 2021In State v. Christensen, 244 Mont. 312, 319 , 797 P.2d 893, 897 (1990), we addressed the question Long did not resolve, stating that "the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence resulting from the conduct of private individuals, even if felonious, unless that conduct involves state action." ¶8 Hofinan does not argue that C.S.'s recording of her phone call involved any state action. | 3 | 5 |
Murray v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2010But that conclusion aside, I believe Golie’s testimony should be subject to the exclusionary rule as well. ¶137 “The exclusionary rule prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized during an unlawful search and of testimony concerning knowledge acquired during an unlawful search.” Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 , 108 S. Ct. 2529, 2533 (1988) (citations omitted). 2010But that conclusion aside, I believe Golie’s testimony should be subject to the exclusionary rule as well. ¶137 “The exclusionary rule prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized during an unlawful search and of testimony concerning knowledge acquired during an unlawful search.” Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 , 108 S. Ct. 2529, 2533 (1988) (citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Calandragreen2 sentences1998The exclusionary rule functions as a judicially created remedy “designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.” United States v. Calandra (1974), 414 U.S. 338, 348 , 94 S. Ct. 613, 620 , 38 L. 1998The exclusionary rule functions as a judicially created remedy “designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.” United States v. Calandra (1974), 414 U.S. 338, 348 , 94 S. Ct. 613, 620 , 38 L. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Newgreen2 sentences2024We have recognized a few narrow exceptions to this general rule when derivative evidence is “(1) attenuated from the constitutional violation so as to remove its primary taint; (2) obtained from an independent source; or (3) determined to be evidence which would have been inevitably 7 discovered apart from the constitutional violation.” State v. New, 276 Mont. 529, 536 , 917 P.2d 919, 923 (1996) (citing State v. Pearson, 217 Mont. 363, 366 , 704 P.2d 1056, 1058-59 (1985); Silverthorn Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 , 40 S. Ct. 182, 183 (1920); Wong Sun, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88 , 83 2024We have recognized a few narrow exceptions to this general rule when derivative evidence is “(1) attenuated from the constitutional violation so as to remove its primary taint; (2) obtained from an independent source; or (3) determined to be evidence which would have been inevitably 7 discovered apart from the constitutional violation.” State v. New, 276 Mont. 529, 536 , 917 P.2d 919, 923 (1996) (citing State v. Pearson, 217 Mont. 363, 366 , 704 P.2d 1056, 1058-59 (1985); Silverthorn Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 , 40 S. Ct. 182, 183 (1920); Wong Sun, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88 , 83 | 2 | 3 |
State v. Pipkingreen2 sentences2024The core premise of the exclusionary rule is to “deter future unlawful police conduct.” Therriault, ¶ 57 (citing State v. Pipkin, 1998 MT 143, ¶ 12 , 289 Mont. 240 , 961 P.2d 733 ). 2024The core premise of the exclusionary rule is to “deter future unlawful police conduct.” Therriault, ¶ 57 (citing State v. Pipkin, 1998 MT 143, ¶ 12 , 289 Mont. 240 , 961 P.2d 733 ). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Hyemgreen2 sentences1985This Court said in State v. Hyem (Mont. 1981), 630 P.2d 202, 208 , 38 St.Rep. 891 , 897, that the exclusionary rule “is a constitutional answer to unconstitutional activity.” I insist on the integrity of that statement. 1985The myopic comments of the Wyoming Supreme Court respecting State v. Hyem (Mont. 1981), 630 P.2d 202 , 38 St.Rep. 891 , result from its conclusion that our history of the exclusionary rule vis-a-vis private action is a “somewhat tortured history.” Not tortured, but straightforward has been our line of decisions. | 1 | 5 |
People ex rel. Demarest v. Gormangreen2 sentences1985This Court said in State v. Hyem (Mont. 1981), 630 P.2d 202, 208 , 38 St.Rep. 891 , 897, that the exclusionary rule “is a constitutional answer to unconstitutional activity.” I insist on the integrity of that statement. 1985The myopic comments of the Wyoming Supreme Court respecting State v. Hyem (Mont. 1981), 630 P.2d 202 , 38 St.Rep. 891 , result from its conclusion that our history of the exclusionary rule vis-a-vis private action is a “somewhat tortured history.” Not tortured, but straightforward has been our line of decisions. | 1 | 5 |
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1981The information leading to the discovery of the second confession came from an independent source, and thus the confession was cleansed of any “primary taint.” The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, as part of the exclusionary rule, was first discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U. S. (1920), 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 . 1981The information leading to the discovery of the second confession came from an independent source, and thus the confession was cleansed of any “primary taint.” The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, as part of the exclusionary rule, was first discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U. S. (1920), 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 . | 1 | 4 |
Alderman v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1977In the recent case of Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed. 2d 176 (1969) the Supreme Court rejected any expansion of the 4th Amendment and the exclusionary rule to include those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence, or those whose rights were not violated by the search itself. 1977In the recent case of Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed. 2d 176 (1969) the Supreme Court rejected any expansion of the 4th Amendment and the exclusionary rule to include those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence, or those whose rights were not violated by the search itself. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Malkuchgreen2 sentences2022See also State v. Malkuch, 2007 MT 60, ¶ 13 , 336 Mont. 219 , 154 P.3d 558 (2007) (“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to ‘deter illegal police conduct and to preserve judicial integrity.’”—quoting State v. Long, 216 Mont. 65, 71 , 700 P.2d 153, 157 (1985)). 2022See also State v. Malkuch, 2007 MT 60, ¶ 13 , 336 Mont. 219 , 154 P.3d 558 (2007) (“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to ‘deter illegal police conduct and to preserve judicial integrity.’”—quoting State v. Long, 216 Mont. 65, 71 , 700 P.2d 153, 157 (1985)). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Pearsongreen2 sentences2000The court cited State v. Pearson (1985), 217 Mont. 363 , 704 P.2d 1056 , for the proposition that inevitable discovery is an exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶9 In Pearson, we alluded to the "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule. 2000The court cited State v. Pearson (1985), 217 Mont. 363 , 704 P.2d 1056 , for the proposition that inevitable discovery is an exception to the exclusionary rule. ¶9 In Pearson, we alluded to the "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule. | 1 | 2 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2022The exclusionary rule is the “principal mode of discouraging lawless police conduct.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 12 , 88 S. Ct. at 1875 . 2022The exclusionary rule is the “principal mode of discouraging lawless police conduct.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 12 , 88 S. Ct. at 1875 . | 1 | 2 |
Nix v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2009Nix, 467 U.S. at 439 , 104 S.Ct. at 2506 . ¶ 54 The United States Supreme Court agreed with the Iowa Supreme Court and adopted in Nix the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. 2009Nix, 467 U.S. at 439 , 104 S. Ct. at 2506 . ¶54 The United States Supreme Court agreed with the Iowa Supreme Court and adopted in Nix the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2002United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (whether exclusion of evidence is appropriate depends on whether “the detrimental consequences of illegal police action become so attenuated that the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule no longer justifies its cost.”). 2002United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (whether exclusion of evidence is appropriate depends on whether “the detrimental consequences of illegal police action become so attenuated that the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule no longer justifies its cost.”). | 1 | 2 |
| Davis v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Cut Bank v. Birdgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Search Warrant for Records From AT & Tgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Florida v. Royergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Illinoisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Akanegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Allengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bramble v. State, Dept. of Justice, MVDgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hulse v. State, Department of Justicegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Laragreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Perrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Tyrone Pryorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Virginia v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Montejo v. Louisianagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Alliesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Edwards v. Arizonagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Davoltgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Craig Lawrence Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Topanotesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2004Four years before, in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , the Court had ruled that the exclusionary rule applies against the states. 2004Four years before, in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , the Court had ruled that the exclusionary rule applies against the states. | 14 | 1969–2022 |
Weeks v. United States
red
2 sentences1990In Weeks v. United States (1914), 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 , the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applied to evidence revealed by unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by federal officials, but also held that the rule did not apply to state officials because the Fourth Amendment, at that time, did not extend to the states. 1990In Weeks v. United States (1914), 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 , the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applied to evidence revealed by unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by federal officials, but also held that the rule did not apply to state officials because the Fourth Amendment, at that time, did not extend to the states. | 5 | 1969–1990 |
State v. Brecht
green
2 sentences1981In State v. Brecht (1971), 157 Mont. 264 , 485 P.2d 47 , this Court applied the exclusionary rule to a telephone conversation of the defendant, overheard by an interloper on an extension line. 1981In State v. Brecht (1971), 157 Mont. 264 , 485 P.2d 47 , this Court applied the exclusionary rule to a telephone conversation of the defendant, overheard by an interloper on an extension line. | 4 | 1974–1983 |
State v. Therriault
green
2 sentences2024State v. Therriault, 2000 MT 286, ¶ 57 , 302 Mont. 189 , 14 P.3d 444 . 2024State v. Therriault, 2000 MT 286, ¶ 57 , 302 Mont. 189 , 14 P.3d 444 . | 3 | 2008–2024 |
State v. Ellis
green
2 sentences2022We have recognized, however, “that the question of whether evidence would have been inevitably discovered is one we can answer sua sponte, provided there is 29 a sufficient record before us to make that determination.” State v. Ellis, 2009 MT 192, ¶ 47 , 351 Mont. 95 , 210 P.3d 144 (emphasis added). ¶47 We consider whether there is a sufficient record of “inevitable discovery” to answer the question sua sponte. 2022We have recognized, however, “that the question of whether evidence would have been inevitably discovered is one we can answer sua sponte, provided there is 29 a sufficient record before us to make that determination.” State v. Ellis, 2009 MT 192, ¶ 47 , 351 Mont. 95 , 210 P.3d 144 (emphasis added). ¶47 We consider whether there is a sufficient record of “inevitable discovery” to answer the question sua sponte. | 3 | 2010–2022 |
State v. Courville
green
2 sentences2010App. Div. 3d Dept. 1996) (the legal protection of Miranda as to the crimes for which the defendant was already in custody do not extend to a new crime committed in the officer’s presence); accord United States v. Smith, 7 F.3d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Pryor, 32 F.3d 1192, 1196 (7th Cir. 1994); cf. State v. Courville, 2002 MT 330, ¶ 23 , 313 Mont. 218 , 61 P.3d 749 (the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence of criminad conduct committed in response to a claimed Fourth Amendment violation). 6 Section 45-4-103(1), MCA, states that “[a] person commits the offense of atte 2010App. Div. 3d Dept. 1996) (the legal protection of Miranda as to the crimes for which the defendant was already in custody do not extend to a new crime committed in the officer’s presence); accord United States v. Smith, 7 F.3d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Pryor, 32 F.3d 1192, 1196 (7th Cir. 1994); cf. State v. Courville, 2002 MT 330, ¶ 23 , 313 Mont. 218 , 61 P.3d 749 (the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence of criminad conduct committed in response to a claimed Fourth Amendment violation). 6 Section 45-4-103(1), MCA, states that “[a] person commits the offense of atte | 2 | 2010–2022 |
State v. Bassett
green
2 sentences2003State v. Bassett, 1999 MT 109, ¶ 57 , 294 Mont. 327, ¶ 57 , 982 P.2d 410, ¶ 57 . 2003State v. Bassett, 1999 MT 109, ¶ 57 , 294 Mont. 327, ¶ 57 , 982 P.2d 410, ¶ 57 . | 2 | 2002–2003 |
State v. Walsh
neutral
2 sentences1995Meidinger, 502 P.2d at 64 ; State v. Walsh (1924), 72 Mont. 110, 117 , 232 P. 194, 197 . 1995Meidinger, 502 P.2d at 64 ; State v. Walsh (1924), 72 Mont. 110, 117 , 232 P. 194, 197 . | 2 | 1972–1995 |
Oregon v. Hass
green
2 sentences1991In the District Court, the State cited Oregon v. Hass (1975), 420 U.S 714, *259 95 S.Ct. 1215 , 43 L.Ed. 2d 570 , and State v. Cartwright (1982), 200 Mont. 91 , 650 P.2d 758 , for the proposition that impeachment is a collateral use to which the exclusionary rule does not apply. 1991In the District Court, the State cited Oregon v. Hass (1975), 420 U.S 714, *259 95 S.Ct. 1215 , 43 L.Ed. 2d 570 , and State v. Cartwright (1982), 200 Mont. 91 , 650 P.2d 758 , for the proposition that impeachment is a collateral use to which the exclusionary rule does not apply. | 2 | 1975–1991 |
Stone v. Powell
green
2 sentences1990Stone v. Powell (1976), 428 U.S. 465, 486 , 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3048 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067, 1083 . 1990Stone v. Powell (1976), 428 U.S. 465, 486 , 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3048 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067, 1083 . | 2 | 1981–1990 |
Ker v. California
green
2 sentences1988The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , the United States Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule as a mechanism to deter police violations of Fourth Amendment search and seizure provisions while Ker 1988The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , the United States Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule as a mechanism to deter police violations of Fourth Amendment search and seizure provisions while Ker | 2 | 1978–1988 |
State v. Coburn
green
2 sentences1985From State v. Brecht, supra, through State v. Coburn (1974), 165 Mont. 488 , 530 P.2d 442 : State v. Sawyer (1977), 174 Mont. 512 , 571 P.2d 1131 ; State v. Helfrich (1979), 183 Mont. 484 , 600 P.2d 816 ; State v. Hyem, supra; State v. Sayers (Mont. 1982), [ 199 Mont. 228 ,] 648 P.2d 291 , 39 St.Rep. 1309 ; and State v. Van Haele (Mont. 1982), [ 199 Mont. 522 ,] 649 P.2d 1311 , the course of our decisions has been straight as an arrow: Our constitutional right of privacy applied to private action. 1985From State v. Brecht, supra, through State v. Coburn (1974), 165 Mont. 488 , 530 P.2d 442 : State v. Sawyer (1977), 174 Mont. 512 , 571 P.2d 1131 ; State v. Helfrich (1979), 183 Mont. 484 , 600 P.2d 816 ; State v. Hyem, supra; State v. Sayers (Mont. 1982), [ 199 Mont. 228 ,] 648 P.2d 291 , 39 St.Rep. 1309 ; and State v. Van Haele (Mont. 1982), [ 199 Mont. 522 ,] 649 P.2d 1311 , the course of our decisions has been straight as an arrow: Our constitutional right of privacy applied to private action. | 2 | 1983–1985 |
| State v. Helfrich neutral | 2 | 1983–1985 |
| State v. Van Haele green | 2 | 1983–1985 |
| Burdeau v. McDowell green | 2 | 1974–1981 |
| Wolf v. Colorado red | 2 | 1974–1981 |
| People v. Cahan green | 2 | 1974–1981 |
| In Re Estate of Minear neutral | 2 | 1949–1949 |
| McCombs v. Church green | 2 | 1949–1949 |
| State v. D. Zimmerman neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Sedler green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Rose green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Jenks v. Bertelsen green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Hilgendorf green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. M. Zeimer green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Pearson green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. D. Hurlbert green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Garner green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Coleman v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Clark green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| City of Missoula v. Armitage green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. West green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| United States v. Johnson red | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Missouri v. Seibert green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Morrisey green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| United States v. Patane green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Adkins green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| United States v. Sasson green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.