95 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1941–2025 20 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025The exclusionary rule was created by the U.S. Supreme Court and is “a deterrent sanction that bars the prosecu- tion from introducing evidence obtained by way of a Fourth Amendment violation.” 36 “The rule’s sole purpose . . . is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations.” 37 “The fact that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred—i.e., that a search or arrest was unreasonable—does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies.” 38 “Police practices trigger the harsh sanction of exclusion only when they are deliberate enough to yield ‘meaningfu[l]’ deterrence, and culpable enough to b 2025The exclusionary rule was created by the U.S. Supreme Court and is “a deterrent sanction that bars the prosecu- tion from introducing evidence obtained by way of a Fourth Amendment violation.” 36 “The rule’s sole purpose . . . is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations.” 37 “The fact that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred—i.e., that a search or arrest was unreasonable—does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies.” 38 “Police practices trigger the harsh sanction of exclusion only when they are deliberate enough to yield ‘meaningfu[l]’ deterrence, and culpable enough to b | 3 | 10 |
Herring v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2023ELIAS Cite as 314 Neb. 494 law. 16 The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliber- ate that exclusion can meaningfully deter such conduct and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system, because exclusion serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances, recurring or systemic negligence. 17 The good faith exception is applicable to an affidavit that fails to sat- isfy the substantial basis test to support probable cause, when police o 2023ELIAS Cite as 314 Neb. 494 law. 16 The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliber- ate that exclusion can meaningfully deter such conduct and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system, because exclusion serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances, recurring or systemic negligence. 17 The good faith exception is applicable to an affidavit that fails to sat- isfy the substantial basis test to support probable cause, when police o | 2 | 9 |
State v. Braygreen2 sentences2017The exclusionary rule is applicable only where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs. - 917 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BRAY Cite as 297 Neb. 916 8. 2017Ed. 2d 1669 (1960). - 929 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BRAY Cite as 297 Neb. 916 The exclusionary rule includes all evidence derivative of the illegality, referred to as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”16 [7,8] However, the exclusionary rule is applicable only where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs.17 Not all evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal action of the police.18 The question is whether the evidence has been obtained by exploiting the primary ill | 2 | 2 |
State v. Allengreen2 sentences2006However, “ ‘ “whether the exclusionary rule’s remedy is appropriate in a particular context [is] an issue separate from the *110 question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.” ’ ” Id. at 78 , 690 N.W.2d at 590 , quoting Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 115 S. Ct. 1185 , 131 L. 2006However, “ ‘ “whether the exclusionary rule’s remedy is appropriate in a particular context [is] an issue separate from the *110 question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.” ’ ” Id. at 78 , 690 N.W.2d at 590 , quoting Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 115 S. Ct. 1185 , 131 L. | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Giordanogreen | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2023In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S. Ct. 3405 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct, rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates, and thus concluded a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should apply when police officers act in objectively reasonable good faith in reliance upon a search warrant. 2023In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S. Ct. 3405 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct, rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates, and thus concluded a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should apply when police officers act in objectively reasonable good faith in reliance upon a search warrant. | 1 | 15 |
United States v. Calandragreen2 sentences2005Under the exclusionary rule, “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the' illegal search and seizure.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. at 347 . 2005Under the exclusionary rule, “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure.” United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. at 347 . | 1 | 6 |
Arizona v. Evansgreen2 sentences2006However, “ ‘ “whether the exclusionary rule’s remedy is appropriate in a particular context [is] an issue separate from the *110 question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.” ’ ” Id. at 78 , 690 N.W.2d at 590 , quoting Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 115 S. Ct. 1185 , 131 L. 2006However, “ ‘ “whether the exclusionary rule’s remedy is appropriate in a particular context [is] an issue separate from the *110 question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.” ’ ” Id. at 78 , 690 N.W.2d at 590 , quoting Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 115 S. Ct. 1185 , 131 L. | 1 | 5 |
United States v. Janisgreen2 sentences2005However, “[wjhere ‘the exclusionary rule does not result in appreciable deterrence, then, clearly, its use ... is unwarranted.’ ” Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. at 11 , quoting United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S. Ct. 3021 , 49 L. 2005However, “[wjhere ‘the exclusionary rule does not result in appreciable deterrence, then, clearly, its use ... is unwarranted.’ ” Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. at 11 , quoting United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S. Ct. 3021 , 49 L. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Shortgreen2 sentences2025SCOTT Cite as 319 Neb. 153 Amendment, warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions, which must be strictly con- fined by their justifications. 10 [8,9] Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in vio- lation of the Fourth Amendment generally cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. 11 The exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not itself a constitutional right. 12 Rather, it is a remedy designed to deter constitut 2025SCOTT Cite as 319 Neb. 153 Amendment, warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions, which must be strictly con- fined by their justifications. 10 [8,9] Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in vio- lation of the Fourth Amendment generally cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. 11 The exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not itself a constitutional right. 12 Rather, it is a remedy designed to deter constitut | 1 | 3 |
State v. Knudsengreen2 sentences2024We affirmed 54 Id. at 852, 479 N.W.2d at 133 . 55 State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 , 477 N.W.2d 544 (1991). 56 Id. at 563 , 477 N.W.2d at 548 . 57 Id. at 566 , 477 N.W.2d at 550 . 58 State v. Knudsen, 201 Neb. 584 , 270 N.W.2d 926 (1978). 59 State v. Tingle, supra note 55 , 239 Neb. at 566, 477 N.W.2d at 550 . - 655 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 316 Nebraska Reports STATE V. 2024We affirmed 54 Id. at 852, 479 N.W.2d at 133 . 55 State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 , 477 N.W.2d 544 (1991). 56 Id. at 563 , 477 N.W.2d at 548 . 57 Id. at 566 , 477 N.W.2d at 550 . 58 State v. Knudsen, 201 Neb. 584 , 270 N.W.2d 926 (1978). 59 State v. Tingle, supra note 55 , 239 Neb. at 566, 477 N.W.2d at 550 . - 655 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 316 Nebraska Reports STATE V. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Tinglegreen2 sentences2024We affirmed 54 Id. at 852, 479 N.W.2d at 133 . 55 State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 , 477 N.W.2d 544 (1991). 56 Id. at 563 , 477 N.W.2d at 548 . 57 Id. at 566 , 477 N.W.2d at 550 . 58 State v. Knudsen, 201 Neb. 584 , 270 N.W.2d 926 (1978). 59 State v. Tingle, supra note 55 , 239 Neb. at 566, 477 N.W.2d at 550 . - 655 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 316 Nebraska Reports STATE V. 2024We affirmed 54 Id. at 852, 479 N.W.2d at 133 . 55 State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 , 477 N.W.2d 544 (1991). 56 Id. at 563 , 477 N.W.2d at 548 . 57 Id. at 566 , 477 N.W.2d at 550 . 58 State v. Knudsen, 201 Neb. 584 , 270 N.W.2d 926 (1978). 59 State v. Tingle, supra note 55 , 239 Neb. at 566, 477 N.W.2d at 550 . - 655 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 316 Nebraska Reports STATE V. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Nussgreen2 sentences2018In Leon , the Supreme Court noted that "an assessment of the flagrancy of the police misconduct constitutes an important step in the calculus" of the exclusionary *638 rule. *831 The Court recently provided further guidance on this point, writing in Herring v. United States [, 555 U.S. 135 , 144, 129 S.Ct. 695 , 702, 172 L.Ed. 2d 496 (2009) ]: "To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.... [T]he exclusionary rule serves to 2018In Leon , the Supreme Court noted that "an assessment of the flagrancy of the police misconduct constitutes an important step in the calculus" of the exclusionary *638 rule. *831 The Court recently provided further guidance on this point, writing in Herring v. United States [, 555 U.S. 135 , 144, 129 S.Ct. 695 , 702, 172 L.Ed. 2d 496 (2009) ]: "To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.... [T]he exclusionary rule serves to | 1 | 3 |
Illinois v. Krullgreen2 sentences2019In Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to evidence obtained by police in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute later found to be unconstitutional. 2019In Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to evidence obtained by police in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute later found to be unconstitutional. | 1 | 3 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences2021Ed. 2d 525 (1978). - 130 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. SHORT Cite as 310 Neb. 81 [34,35] A warrant affidavit must always set forth particular facts and circumstances underlying the existence of probable cause, so as to allow the magistrate to make an independent evaluation of probable cause. 74 The nexus between the alleged crimes and the article to be searched, however, does not need to be based on direct observation; it can be found in the type of crime, the nature of the evidence sought, and the normal infer- ences as to where such evidence may be fou 2005Ed. 2d 34 (1995), quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S. Ct. 2317 , 76 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2021The framework for this analysis was articulated by the Nebraska Supreme Court in State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 684, 694-95 , 884 N.W.2d 429, 439 (2016): Both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. 2016The State further argues that the exclusionary rule does not apply in this case, because 5 See § 2703(c)(1)(A). 6 See § 2703(d). - 694 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JENKINS Cite as 294 Neb. 684 either the good faith exception7 applies, the independent source doctrine8 applies, or the inevitable discovery doc- trine9 applies. (b) Standard of Review [2] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to sup- press based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review.10 Regarding historical facts, | 1 | 2 |
| One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvaniagreen | 1 | 2 |
| Cleary v. Bolgergreen | 1 | 2 |
| United States v. Jacobsengreen | 1 | 1 |
| SID No. 596 v. THG Developmentgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cohan v. Medical Imaging Consultants (supplemental opinion)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wheelergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hoerle
green
2 sentences2024Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Hoehn’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution were violated, invoking the exclusionary rule. (iii) Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule Lastly, the Court of Appeals determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 10 Because the exclusionary rule was created to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors, 11 it does not apply to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. 12 Because § 29-215(3)(c) had not previously been construed by an appella 2024Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Hoehn’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution were violated, invoking the exclusionary rule. (iii) Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule Lastly, the Court of Appeals determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 10 Because the exclusionary rule was created to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors, 11 it does not apply to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. 12 Because § 29-215(3)(c) had not previously been construed by an appella | 8 | 2017–2024 |
State v. Hill
green
2 sentences2018Stat. § 29-2315.01 (Reissue 2016). 11 See State v. Thalken, supra note 4 . 12 See State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 , 870 N.W.2d 119 (2015). 13 See State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 767 , 851 N.W.2d 670 (2014). - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HATFIELD Cite as 300 Neb. 152 exception to the rule.14 The Birchfield decision did not directly address whether the good faith exception should apply where consent to a blood test is given following an incorrect advise- ment that refusing such a test is a crime. [10] In State v. Hoerle,15 we concluded that the good faith exc 2017STANDARD OF REVIEW [1-3] In a criminal case, a motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of discretion is shown, the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed.5 Application of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a question of law.6 On a question of law, an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the court below.7 5 State v. Olbricht, 294 Neb. 974 , 885 N.W.2d 699 (2016). 6 State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 767 , 851 N.W.2d 670 (2014). 7 State v. Muhannad, 290 Neb. 59 , 858 N.W.2d 598 (2015). - 844 - Nebraska Supreme C | 5 | 2014–2018 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1982Ed. 2d 601 (1965), the U.S. Supreme Court was deciding whether the exclusionary principle enunciated in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S. Ct. 1684 , 6 L. 1982Ed. 2d 601 (1965), the U.S. Supreme Court was deciding whether the exclusionary principle enunciated in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S. Ct. 1684 , 6 L. | 4 | 1976–1982 |
State v. Jennings
green
2 sentences2025SCOTT Cite as 319 Neb. 153 Amendment, warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions, which must be strictly con- fined by their justifications. 10 [8,9] Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in vio- lation of the Fourth Amendment generally cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. 11 The exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not itself a constitutional right. 12 Rather, it is a remedy designed to deter constitut 2025SCOTT Cite as 319 Neb. 153 Amendment, warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions, which must be strictly con- fined by their justifications. 10 [8,9] Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in vio- lation of the Fourth Amendment generally cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. 11 The exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not itself a constitutional right. 12 Rather, it is a remedy designed to deter constitut | 3 | 2020–2025 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2020We concluded that officers in each case were fol- lowing the statute as written and that the statute in question was not clearly unconstitutional. [2,3] The exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not itself a constitutional right. 9 Rather, it is a remedy designed to deter constitutional violations by law enforcement. 10 Thus, in situations where the exclusion as a remedy would not deter law enforcement, several excep- tions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized. 11 One of those exceptions applies to evidence obtained by police in objectively reasonable 2020We concluded that officers in each case were fol- lowing the statute as written and that the statute in question was not clearly unconstitutional. [2,3] The exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not itself a constitutional right. 9 Rather, it is a remedy designed to deter constitutional violations by law enforcement. 10 Thus, in situations where the exclusion as a remedy would not deter law enforcement, several excep- tions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized. 11 One of those exceptions applies to evidence obtained by police in objectively reasonable | 3 | 2019–2020 |
State v. Tyler
green
2 sentences2018Stat. § 29-2315.01 (Reissue 2016). 11 See State v. Thalken, supra note 4 . 12 See State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 , 870 N.W.2d 119 (2015). 13 See State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 767 , 851 N.W.2d 670 (2014). - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HATFIELD Cite as 300 Neb. 152 exception to the rule.14 The Birchfield decision did not directly address whether the good faith exception should apply where consent to a blood test is given following an incorrect advise- ment that refusing such a test is a crime. [10] In State v. Hoerle,15 we concluded that the good faith exc 2015Even if they violated the 31 State v. LeBron, supra note 24, 217 Neb. at 454-55 , 349 N.W.2d at 921 (quoting United States v. Fitzgerald, supra note 30 ). - 937 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports STATE v. TYLER Cite as 291 Neb. 920 particularity requirement, exclusion is not required, because the good faith exception applies. [10,11] That a Fourth Amendment violation occurred does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies.32 The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter police misconduct.33 It is inapplicable to evidence obtained pursuant to | 3 | 2015–2018 |
Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza
green
2 sentences2005INS v. Lopez Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 , 104 S. Ct. 3479 , 82 L. 2005Ed. 2d 778 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether to extend the exclusionary rule to civil deportation hearings and discussed the “framework for deciding in what types of proceeding application of the exclusionary rule is appropriate.” The Court stated: *933 Id., citing United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S. Ct. 3021 , 49 L. | 3 | 2000–2005 |
State v. Barajas
green
2 sentences2025A joint ven- ture is not created by U.S. officials’ identification and notifica- tion of a suspect in a foreign country, provision of information to the foreign authorities, and request that the foreign authori- ties conduct a search or seizure. 24 [17-20] The “‘joint venture’ doctrine is a purposefully lim- ited exception” with a “high threshold for a defendant to invoke it.” 25 The question of whether a joint venture existed between U.S. law enforcement and foreign officials is dependent on the facts and circumstances of a case, and not one fact or circum- stance, or combination thereof, is 1976We stated recently in State v. Barajas, 195 Neb. 502 , 238 N. W. 2d 913 , that the exclusionary rule has no application where its deterrent purpose is not served. | 2 | 1976–2025 |
State v. Simons
green
2 sentences2024Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Hoehn’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution were violated, invoking the exclusionary rule. (iii) Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule Lastly, the Court of Appeals determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 10 Because the exclusionary rule was created to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors, 11 it does not apply to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. 12 Because § 29-215(3)(c) had not previously been construed by an appella 2023SIMONS Cite as 315 Neb. 415 [3] Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which an appellate court reviews independently of the lower court’s determination. 12 ANALYSIS [4,5] The decisive issue in this appeal is the denial of Simons’ motion to suppress, which asked the district court to apply the exclusionary rule to the allegedly unreasonable search of his bedroom and seizure of the items found within. | 2 | 2023–2024 |
State v. Hoehn
green
2 sentences2024The Nebraska Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court’s interpretation of § 29-215(3)(c) and found that the officer lacked jurisdictional authority to make the stop and arrest. 1 The Court of Appeals held that under the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule, the defendant’s conviction, based on the evidence from his stop and arrest, 1 See State v. Hoehn, 32 Neb. 2024App. 446 , 999 N.W.2d 599 (2023). - 636 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 316 Nebraska Reports STATE V. | 2 | 2023–2024 |
State v. Kruse
green
2 sentences2024Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Hoehn’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution were violated, invoking the exclusionary rule. (iii) Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule Lastly, the Court of Appeals determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 10 Because the exclusionary rule was created to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors, 11 it does not apply to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. 12 Because § 29-215(3)(c) had not previously been construed by an appella 2024Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Hoehn’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution were violated, invoking the exclusionary rule. (iii) Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule Lastly, the Court of Appeals determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 10 Because the exclusionary rule was created to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors, 11 it does not apply to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. 12 Because § 29-215(3)(c) had not previously been construed by an appella | 2 | 2022–2024 |
State v. Thalken
green
2 sentences2018Because we can dispose of the mer- its of the appeal on the basis of the good faith exception, we need not make a determination as to the voluntariness of the blood draw. [7-9] The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy that generally prohibits the use of evidence obtained in viola- tion of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.12 Its purpose is to deter police misconduct.13 Because the exclusionary rule should not be applied to objectively reasonable law enforce- ment activity, the U.S. Supreme Court created a good faith 8 Id. 9 State v. Thalken, supra note 4 . 10 See Neb. 2018Stat. § 29-2315.01 (Reissue 2016). 11 See State v. Thalken, supra note 4 . 12 See State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 , 870 N.W.2d 119 (2015). 13 See State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 767 , 851 N.W.2d 670 (2014). - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HATFIELD Cite as 300 Neb. 152 exception to the rule.14 The Birchfield decision did not directly address whether the good faith exception should apply where consent to a blood test is given following an incorrect advise- ment that refusing such a test is a crime. [10] In State v. Hoerle,15 we concluded that the good faith exc | 2 | 2018–2022 |
State v. Surber
neutral
2 sentences2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] The question of competency to stand trial is one of fact to be determined by the court, and the means employed in - 330 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. SURBER Cite as 311 Neb. 320 resolving the question are discretionary with the court. 2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] The question of competency to stand trial is one of fact to be determined by the court, and the means employed in - 330 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. SURBER Cite as 311 Neb. 320 resolving the question are discretionary with the court. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Utah v. Strieff
green
2 sentences2022Exclusionary Rule [19] The Fourth Amendment does not expressly preclude the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands. 40 Rather, the exclusionary rule operates as a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights gen- erally through its deterrent effect. 41 The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates. 42 To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclu- sion can meaningfully deter such conduct and sufficiently cul- pable that such deterrenc 2017Ed. 2d 1669 (1960). - 929 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BRAY Cite as 297 Neb. 916 The exclusionary rule includes all evidence derivative of the illegality, referred to as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”16 [7,8] However, the exclusionary rule is applicable only where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs.17 Not all evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal action of the police.18 The question is whether the evidence has been obtained by exploiting the primary ill | 2 | 2017–2022 |
Utah v. Strieff
green
2 sentences2022Exclusionary Rule [19] The Fourth Amendment does not expressly preclude the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands. 40 Rather, the exclusionary rule operates as a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights gen- erally through its deterrent effect. 41 The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates. 42 To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclu- sion can meaningfully deter such conduct and sufficiently cul- pable that such deterrenc 2022Exclusionary Rule [19] The Fourth Amendment does not expressly preclude the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands. 40 Rather, the exclusionary rule operates as a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights gen- erally through its deterrent effect. 41 The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates. 42 To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclu- sion can meaningfully deter such conduct and sufficiently cul- pable that such deterrenc | 2 | 2017–2022 |
| State v. Edmonson green | 2 | 2000–2021 |
| Hudson v. Michigan green | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| Stone v. Powell green | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Tompkins green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Tompkins green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Elkins v. United States green | 2 | 1976–2017 |
| Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott green | 2 | 2000–2017 |
| Wong Sun v. United States green | 2 | 2015–2017 |
| United States v. Eric B. Reinholz Margaret E. Chevalier green | 2 | 2015–2017 |
| State v. Henderson green | 2 | 2014–2017 |
| Alderman v. United States green | 2 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Davidson green | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| Nix v. Williams green | 2 | 1986–1990 |
| Linkletter v. Walker red | 2 | 1976–1982 |
| United States v. Carmen Rosa Behety, Felino Ramirez-Valdez green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Nolt green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| United States v. Andrew Pierson green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Langley green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Scott green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Vazquez green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Falcon neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| United States v. John L. Morrow green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| United States v. Flath green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| United States v. Adler neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.