13 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sanchez v. Stategreen1 sentence2018As the arrest was without probable cause, the admission of evidence obtained from the search was in error. 12 See Sanchez , 803 N.E.2d at 221 ("fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine bars illegally obtained evidence from admission). | 1 | 1 |
Utley v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Utley v. State, 589 N.E.2d 232, 236 (Ind. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1058 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
LaQuantis Johnson v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2017As such, Bell’s Article 1, Section 11 rights were not violated Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1606-CR-1390 | July 14, 2017 Page 10 of 20 and the admission of evidence found thereafter in the search was not error. 12 See Johnson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 658, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (“outer-clothing pat down” of non-compliant defendant was not a violation of Section 11), trans. denied. 2017As such, Bell’s Article 1, Section 11 rights were not violated and the admission of evidence found thereafter in the search was not error. 12 See Johnson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 658, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (“outer-clothing pat down” of non-compliant defendant was not a violation of Section 11), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Middleton v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Middleton, 714 N.E.2d at 1101 n. 2 (noting its facts were distinguishable from other cases where courts upheld a "subsequent" seizure of evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Purdy v. Stategreen1 sentence1999When addressing the defendant’s claim that evidence of the marijuana should have been suppressed at the subsequent trial because the search was in violation of his constitutional rights, the Purdy court affirmatively adopted Judge Staton’s concurring opinion in Rivera and “affirm[ed] the importance of a reasonableness limitation on a probationer’s consent to waive his Fourth Amendment rights in a probation agreement.” Id. at 23. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wong Sun v. United States
green
2 sentences1987This figure of speech is drawn from Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), in which the Court held that evidence and witnesses discovered as a result of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be execlud-ed from evidence. 1987This figure of speech is drawn from Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), in which the Court held that evidence and witnesses discovered as a result of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be execlud-ed from evidence. | 2 | 1985–1987 |
Garcia-Torres v. State
green
1 sentence2024Pirtle advisements are only necessary when the defendant consents to a search while in custody, and it is not clear from the record whether both of those circumstances coexist here. 4 Even if we assume that Owens was in custody and consented to the collection of the swabs, however, we hold that the collection of the swabs here was not the type of search that triggers Pirtle protections. [22] We find Garcia-Torres, 949 N.E.2d 1229 , instructive. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Pirtle v. State
green
1 sentence2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brown v. United States
green
1 sentence2017Utley v. State, 589 N.E.2d 232, 236 (Ind. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1058 (1993). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Bryant v. State
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
green
2 sentences2006Indeed, in Bivens, the defendants conceded that a state law tort remedy might lie for the acts of federal officials conducting a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 403 U.S. at 390-91 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 . 2006Indeed, in Bivens, the defendants conceded that a state law tort remedy might lie for the acts of federal officials conducting a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 403 U.S. at 390-91 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Oregon v. Elstad
green
2 sentences2003As discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 306 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), the Wong Sun Court held that evidence and witnesses discovered as a result of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be exeluded from evidence. 2003As discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 306 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), the Wong Sun Court held that evidence and witnesses discovered as a result of a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be exeluded from evidence. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1987The Wong Sun doctrine applies as well when the fruit of the Fourth Amendment violation is a confession. -It is settled law that 'a confession obtained through custodial interrogation after an illegal arrest should be excluded unless intervening events break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the confession so that the confession is "sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint."' Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 690 , 102 S.Ct. 2664, 2667 , 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982) (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 602 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)). 1987The Wong Sun doctrine applies as well when the fruit of the Fourth Amendment violation is a confession. -It is settled law that 'a confession obtained through custodial interrogation after an illegal arrest should be excluded unless intervening events break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the confession so that the confession is "sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint."' Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 690 , 102 S.Ct. 2664, 2667 , 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982) (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 602 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Taylor v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1987The Wong Sun doctrine applies as well when the fruit of the Fourth Amendment violation is a confession. -It is settled law that 'a confession obtained through custodial interrogation after an illegal arrest should be excluded unless intervening events break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the confession so that the confession is "sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint."' Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 690 , 102 S.Ct. 2664, 2667 , 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982) (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 602 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)). 1987The Wong Sun doctrine applies as well when the fruit of the Fourth Amendment violation is a confession. -It is settled law that 'a confession obtained through custodial interrogation after an illegal arrest should be excluded unless intervening events break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the confession so that the confession is "sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint."' Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 690 , 102 S.Ct. 2664, 2667 , 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982) (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 602 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975)). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
May v. State
green
2 sentences1968Wilson v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 454 , 217 N. E. 2d 147 ; Minton v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 307 , 214 N. E. 2d 380 ; May v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 523 , 112 N. E. 2d 439 ; Tyler v. State (1931), 202 Ind. 559 , 177 N. E. 197 . 1968Wilson v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 454 , 217 N. E. 2d 147 ; Minton v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 307 , 214 N. E. 2d 380 ; May v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 523 , 112 N. E. 2d 439 ; Tyler v. State (1931), 202 Ind. 559 , 177 N. E. 197 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Tyler v. State
green
2 sentences1968Wilson v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 454 , 217 N. E. 2d 147 ; Minton v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 307 , 214 N. E. 2d 380 ; May v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 523 , 112 N. E. 2d 439 ; Tyler v. State (1931), 202 Ind. 559 , 177 N. E. 197 . 1968Wilson v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 454 , 217 N. E. 2d 147 ; Minton v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 307 , 214 N. E. 2d 380 ; May v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 523 , 112 N. E. 2d 439 ; Tyler v. State (1931), 202 Ind. 559 , 177 N. E. 197 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Wilson v. State
green
2 sentences1968Wilson v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 454 , 217 N. E. 2d 147 ; Minton v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 307 , 214 N. E. 2d 380 ; May v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 523 , 112 N. E. 2d 439 ; Tyler v. State (1931), 202 Ind. 559 , 177 N. E. 197 . 1968Wilson v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 454 , 217 N. E. 2d 147 ; Minton v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 307 , 214 N. E. 2d 380 ; May v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 523 , 112 N. E. 2d 439 ; Tyler v. State (1931), 202 Ind. 559 , 177 N. E. 197 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Minton v. State
green
2 sentences1968Wilson v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 454 , 217 N. E. 2d 147 ; Minton v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 307 , 214 N. E. 2d 380 ; May v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 523 , 112 N. E. 2d 439 ; Tyler v. State (1931), 202 Ind. 559 , 177 N. E. 197 . 1968Wilson v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 454 , 217 N. E. 2d 147 ; Minton v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 307 , 214 N. E. 2d 380 ; May v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 523 , 112 N. E. 2d 439 ; Tyler v. State (1931), 202 Ind. 559 , 177 N. E. 197 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.