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.
85 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Hawaii 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. Lopezgreen2 sentences2023In State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai#i 433, 896 P.2d 889 (1995), the supreme court adopted the federal concept of inevitable discovery, stating that "the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule is a sound principle, which prevents the setting aside of convictions that would have been obtained in the absence of police misconduct." Id. at 451, 896 P.2d at 907 . 2023In State v. Lopez, 78 Hawai#i 433, 896 P.2d 889 (1995), the supreme court adopted the federal concept of inevitable discovery, stating that "the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule is a sound principle, which prevents the setting aside of convictions that would have been obtained in the absence of police misconduct." Id. at 451, 896 P.2d at 907 . | 8 | 15 |
State v. Pattioaygreen2 sentences2017Rather, in “certain circumstances,” this court uses its supervisory authority to “appl[y] the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of a statute or rule without requiring a constitutional violation.” Id. at 238 , 30 P.3d at 252 (citing State v. Wilson, 92 Hawai'i 45 , 987 P.2d 268 (1999); State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455 , 896 P.2d 911 (1995)). 2017Rather, in “certain circumstances,” this court uses its supervisory authority to “appl[y] the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of a statute or rule without requiring a constitutional violation.” Id. at 238 , 30 P.3d at 252 (citing State v. Wilson, 92 Hawai'i 45 , 987 P.2d 268 (1999); State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455 , 896 P.2d 911 (1995)). | 6 | 9 |
State v. Santiagogreen2 sentences2002See State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455, 468 , 896 P.2d 911, 924 (1995) (“The purpose of the exclusionary rule ... is primarily to deter illegal police conduct and secondarily to recognize that the courts of this State have the inherent supervisory power over criminal prosecutions to ensure that evidence illegally obtained by government officials or them agents is not utilized in the administration of criminal justice through the courts.” (Citing State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 264 , 492 P.2d 657, 663 (1971); Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 602-4 (1985).); cf. State v. Edwards, 96 Hawai'i 224, 237 , 2002See State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455, 468 , 896 P.2d 911, 924 (1995) (“The purpose of the exclusionary rule ... is primarily to deter illegal police conduct and secondarily to recognize that the courts of this State have the inherent supervisory power over criminal prosecutions to ensure that evidence illegally obtained by government officials or them agents is not utilized in the administration of criminal justice through the courts.” (Citing State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 264 , 492 P.2d 657, 663 (1971); Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 602-4 (1985).); cf. State v. Edwards, 96 Hawai'i 224, 237 , | 5 | 5 |
State v. Bridgesred2 sentences2013A. Because it relied solely on Lopez and neglected to apply Torres , the ICA’s decision conflicts with precedent. 11 The exclusionary rule preserves judicial integrity by ensuring that courts do not “place their imprimatur on evidence that was illegally obtained by allowing it into evidence....” Torres, 125 Hawai'i at 394 , 262 P.3d at 1018 (citing Bridges, 83 Hawai'i at 196 , 925 P.2d at 366 ). 2013A. Because it relied solely on Lopez and neglected to apply Torres , the ICA’s decision conflicts with precedent. 11 The exclusionary rule preserves judicial integrity by ensuring that courts do not “place their imprimatur on evidence that was illegally obtained by allowing it into evidence....” Torres, 125 Hawai'i at 394 , 262 P.3d at 1018 (citing Bridges, 83 Hawai'i at 196 , 925 P.2d at 366 ). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Torresgreen2 sentences2013“The ‘judicial integrity1 purpose of the exclusionary rule is essentially that the courts should not place their imprimatur on evidence that was illegally obtained by allowing it to be admitted into evidence in a criminal prosecution.” Torres, 125 Hawai'i at 394 , 262 P.3d at 1018 (citation omitted). 2013“The ‘judicial integrity1 purpose of the exclusionary rule is essentially that the courts should not place their imprimatur on evidence that was illegally obtained by allowing it to be admitted into evidence in a criminal prosecution.” Torres, 125 Hawai'i at 394 , 262 P.3d at 1018 (citation omitted). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Tanakagreen2 sentences2013This provision of the Hawaii Constitution “provides broader protection than the [FJourth [AJmendment to the United States Constitution because it also [expressly] protects against unreasonable invasions of privacy.” State v. Dixon, 83 Hawai'i 13, 23 , 924 P.2d 181, 191 (1996) (emphasis added); see also Torres, 125 Hawai'i at 396 , 262 P.3d at 1020 (“[Our exclusionary rule is] unlike the exclusionary rule of the federal government and some other jurisdictions insofar as it guarantees individual privacy rights”); State v. Navas, 81 Hawai'i 113, 123 , 913 P.2d 39, 49 (1996) (“[A]rticle I § 7 of t 2013This provision of the Hawaii Constitution “provides broader protection than the [FJourth [AJmendment to the United States Constitution because it also [expressly] protects against unreasonable invasions of privacy.” State v. Dixon, 83 Hawai'i 13, 23 , 924 P.2d 181, 191 (1996) (emphasis added); see also Torres, 125 Hawai'i at 396 , 262 P.3d at 1020 (“[Our exclusionary rule is] unlike the exclusionary rule of the federal government and some other jurisdictions insofar as it guarantees individual privacy rights”); State v. Navas, 81 Hawai'i 113, 123 , 913 P.2d 39, 49 (1996) (“[A]rticle I § 7 of t | 4 | 4 |
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2013Two decades later, in a substantial shift from Mapp, the Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), abandoned two of the three purposes of the exclusionary rule and decided that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rale was to deter unlawful police conduct. 4 In Leon , police officers executed a facially valid warrant issued by a state superior court judge. 468 U.S. at 902 , 104 S.Ct. 3430 . 2013Two decades later, in a substantial shift from Mapp, the Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), abandoned two of the three purposes of the exclusionary rule and decided that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rale was to deter unlawful police conduct. 4 In Leon , police officers executed a facially valid warrant issued by a state superior court judge. 468 U.S. at 902 , 104 S.Ct. 3430 . | 3 | 6 |
State v. Bowegreen2 sentences2002See State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455, 468 , 896 P.2d 911, 924 (1995) (“The purpose of the exclusionary rule ... is primarily to deter illegal police conduct and secondarily to recognize that the courts of this State have the inherent supervisory power over criminal prosecutions to ensure that evidence illegally obtained by government officials or them agents is not utilized in the administration of criminal justice through the courts.” (Citing State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 264 , 492 P.2d 657, 663 (1971); Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 602-4 (1985).); cf. State v. Edwards, 96 Hawai'i 224, 237 , 2002See State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455, 468 , 896 P.2d 911, 924 (1995) (“The purpose of the exclusionary rule ... is primarily to deter illegal police conduct and secondarily to recognize that the courts of this State have the inherent supervisory power over criminal prosecutions to ensure that evidence illegally obtained by government officials or them agents is not utilized in the administration of criminal justice through the courts.” (Citing State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 264 , 492 P.2d 657, 663 (1971); Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 602-4 (1985).); cf. State v. Edwards, 96 Hawai'i 224, 237 , | 3 | 4 |
State v. Kahooneigreen2 sentences2011Bridges thus appears internally inconsistent as to a reasoned application of our exclusionary rule. [15] This court has determined that "`[u]nlike the exclusionary rule on the federal level, Hawai`i's exclusionary rule serves not only to deter illegal police conduct, but to protect the privacy rights of our citizens.'" State v. Kahoonei, 83 Hawai`i 124, 131, 925 P.2d 294, 301 (1996) (quoting Lopez, 78 Hawai`i at 445, 896 P.2d at 901); see also State v. Dixon, 83 Hawai`i 13, 23, 924 P.2d 181, 191 (1996) (stating that "article I, section 7 of the Hawai`i Constitution provides broader protection 2011See Bridges, 83 Hawai`i at 195, 925 P.2d at 365 (stating that "[u]nder an exclusionary rule analysis the court first identifies the principles to be served by the exclusionary rule, and then evaluates how the principles would be served by exclusion" (brackets in original)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Navasgreen2 sentences2013This provision of the Hawaii Constitution “provides broader protection than the [FJourth [AJmendment to the United States Constitution because it also [expressly] protects against unreasonable invasions of privacy.” State v. Dixon, 83 Hawai'i 13, 23 , 924 P.2d 181, 191 (1996) (emphasis added); see also Torres, 125 Hawai'i at 396 , 262 P.3d at 1020 (“[Our exclusionary rule is] unlike the exclusionary rule of the federal government and some other jurisdictions insofar as it guarantees individual privacy rights”); State v. Navas, 81 Hawai'i 113, 123 , 913 P.2d 39, 49 (1996) (“[A]rticle I § 7 of t 2013This provision of the Hawaii Constitution “provides broader protection than the [FJourth [AJmendment to the United States Constitution because it also [expressly] protects against unreasonable invasions of privacy.” State v. Dixon, 83 Hawai'i 13, 23 , 924 P.2d 181, 191 (1996) (emphasis added); see also Torres, 125 Hawai'i at 396 , 262 P.3d at 1020 (“[Our exclusionary rule is] unlike the exclusionary rule of the federal government and some other jurisdictions insofar as it guarantees individual privacy rights”); State v. Navas, 81 Hawai'i 113, 123 , 913 P.2d 39, 49 (1996) (“[A]rticle I § 7 of t | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Edmundsgreen2 sentences2013To the extent that the dissent cites Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) – which did not involve a clerical error regarding a warrant’s issuance date but involved an affidavit that lacked requisite facts – we note in that case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania expressly declined to adopt the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule, emphasizing, inter alia, that its constitution is “unshakably linked to a right of privacy[.]” Edmunds, 586 A.2d at 898, 905-06 . 2013To the extent that the dissent cites Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) – which did not involve a clerical error regarding a warrant’s issuance date but involved an affidavit that lacked requisite facts – we note in that case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania expressly declined to adopt the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule, emphasizing, inter alia, that its constitution is “unshakably linked to a right of privacy[.]” Edmunds, 586 A.2d at 898, 905-06 . | 3 | 3 |
State v. Dixongreen2 sentences2013This provision of the Hawaii Constitution “provides broader protection than the [FJourth [AJmendment to the United States Constitution because it also [expressly] protects against unreasonable invasions of privacy.” State v. Dixon, 83 Hawai'i 13, 23 , 924 P.2d 181, 191 (1996) (emphasis added); see also Torres, 125 Hawai'i at 396 , 262 P.3d at 1020 (“[Our exclusionary rule is] unlike the exclusionary rule of the federal government and some other jurisdictions insofar as it guarantees individual privacy rights”); State v. Navas, 81 Hawai'i 113, 123 , 913 P.2d 39, 49 (1996) (“[A]rticle I § 7 of t 2013This provision of the Hawaii Constitution “provides broader protection than the [FJourth [AJmendment to the United States Constitution because it also [expressly] protects against unreasonable invasions of privacy.” State v. Dixon, 83 Hawai'i 13, 23 , 924 P.2d 181, 191 (1996) (emphasis added); see also Torres, 125 Hawai'i at 396 , 262 P.3d at 1020 (“[Our exclusionary rule is] unlike the exclusionary rule of the federal government and some other jurisdictions insofar as it guarantees individual privacy rights”); State v. Navas, 81 Hawai'i 113, 123 , 913 P.2d 39, 49 (1996) (“[A]rticle I § 7 of t | 3 | 3 |
State v. Mintergreen2 sentences2011Of course, when evidence is not obtained illegally, "no loss of judicial integrity is implicated in a decision to admit the evidence." 83 Hawai'i at 196, 925 P.2d at 366 (quoting State v. Minter, 116 N.J. 269 , 561 A.2d 570, 571 (1989)). 1996See, e.g., LaFave, supra, at 151-52; Latzer, supra, at 875 (stating that the exclusionary rule analysis “appears better suited to criminal cases than conflicts of law theories”); Minter, 561 A.2d at 576 (“The better approach, we think, is the exclusionary-rule analysis[.]”); Porter, 742 P.2d at 925 (“We agree that ... an exclusionary rule analysis should be followed.”); Lucas, 372 N.W.2d at 736-37 ; Mattson, 207 Cal.Rptr. at 282 , 688 P.2d at 891 ; Blair, 159 Cal.Rptr. at 827-28 , 602 P.2d at 747-48 ; Tullis & Ludlow, supra, at 88-91. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Boyntongreen2 sentences2002A. The exclusionary rule provides that “ ‘[a] subsequent search even under warrant based upon the evidence obtained in the former tainted search is also tainted.’ ” State v. Brighter, 63 Haw. 95, 100 , 621 P.2d 374, 379 (1980) (quoting State v. Boynton, 58 Haw. 530, 535 , 574 P.2d 1330, 1334 (1978)). 2002A. The exclusionary rule provides that “ ‘[a] subsequent search even under warrant based upon the evidence obtained in the former tainted search is also tainted.’ ” State v. Brighter, 63 Haw. 95, 100 , 621 P.2d 374, 379 (1980) (quoting State v. Boynton, 58 Haw. 530, 535 , 574 P.2d 1330, 1334 (1978)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2017Rather, in “certain circumstances,” this court uses its supervisory authority to “appl[y] the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of a statute or rule without requiring a constitutional violation.” Id. at 238 , 30 P.3d at 252 (citing State v. Wilson, 92 Hawai'i 45 , 987 P.2d 268 (1999); State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455 , 896 P.2d 911 (1995)). 2017Rather, in “certain circumstances,” this court uses its supervisory authority to “appl[y] the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of a statute or rule without requiring a constitutional violation.” Id. at 238 , 30 P.3d at 252 (citing State v. Wilson, 92 Hawai'i 45 , 987 P.2d 268 (1999); State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455 , 896 P.2d 911 (1995)). | 2 | 5 |
Mapp v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2013The exclusionary rule stands for the proposition that in a “prosecution, the Fourth Amendment bars the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure.” Mapp, 367 U.S. at 647 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 (citing Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 28 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949)). 2013The exclusionary rule stands for the proposition that in a “prosecution, the Fourth Amendment bars the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure.” Mapp, 367 U.S. at 647 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 (citing Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 28 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949)). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2017Rather, in “certain circumstances,” this court uses its supervisory authority to “appl[y] the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of a statute or rule without requiring a constitutional violation.” Id. at 238 , 30 P.3d at 252 (citing State v. Wilson, 92 Hawai'i 45 , 987 P.2d 268 (1999); State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455 , 896 P.2d 911 (1995)). 2017Rather, in “certain circumstances,” this court uses its supervisory authority to “appl[y] the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of a statute or rule without requiring a constitutional violation.” Id. at 238 , 30 P.3d at 252 (citing State v. Wilson, 92 Hawai'i 45 , 987 P.2d 268 (1999); State v. Pattioay, 78 Hawai'i 455 , 896 P.2d 911 (1995)). | 2 | 4 |
United States v. Calandragreen2 sentences2013See also United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 , 94 S.Ct. 613 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) ("|T]he primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter future unlawful police conduct”); United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 542 , 95 S.Ct. 2313 , 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975) ("[T]he purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct ...”). . 2013See also United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 , 94 S.Ct. 613 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) ("|T]he primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter future unlawful police conduct”); United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 542 , 95 S.Ct. 2313 , 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975) ("[T]he purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct ...”). . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences1996Among the cases that we cited in Lopez in support of our departure from the federal rationale of the exclusionary rule were two decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court, including State v. Davis, 313 Or. 246 , 834 P.2d 1008 (1992). . 1996Among the cases that we cited in Lopez in support of our departure from the federal rationale of the exclusionary rule were two decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court, including State v. Davis, 313 Or. 246 , 834 P.2d 1008 (1992). . | 2 | 3 |
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1964As stated in Wong Sun : "The exclusionary rule has traditionally barred from trial physical, tangible materials obtained either during or as a direct result of an unlawful invasion," and "matters observed [or overheard] during an unlawful invasion * * *." Wong Sun extended this rule to "verbal evidence which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and an unauthorized arrest as the officers' action in the present case * * *." ( 371 U.S. at 485 ). 1964As stated in Wong Sim: “The exclusionary rule has traditionally barred from trial physical, tangible materials obtained either during or as a direct result of an unlawful invasion,” and “matters observed [or overheard] during an unlawful invasion * * Wong Sun extended this rule to “verbal evidence which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and an unauthorized arrest as the officers’ action in the present case * * ( 371 U.S. at 485 ). | 2 | 3 |
Quinn v. WILSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANYgreen2 sentences2025Co., 53 Haw. 19, 21 , 486 P.2d 59, 60 (1971) (citations omitted) (when an insurer relies on an exclusionary clause of a policy as an affirmative defense to liability, “it has the burden of proving facts which bring the case within the exclusion”); In re Dowsett Tr., 7 Haw. 2025Co., 53 Haw. 19, 21 , 486 P.2d 59, 60 (1971) (citations omitted) (when an insurer relies on an exclusionary clause of a policy as an affirmative defense to liability, “it has the burden of proving facts which bring the case within the exclusion”); In re Dowsett Tr., 7 Haw. | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Coopergreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Gerenagreen | 2 | 2 |
| Menefee v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Rodriguesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Andersongreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Bullockgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Abordogreen | 2 | 2 |
| Jones v. United Statesred | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Augafagreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Brightergreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Tannergreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Pokinigreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Hillgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Peetegreen | 2 | 2 |
Elkins v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011Quigley suggests that with respect to joint investigations, state police officers and prosecutors could wait "until after the critical stages in the investigation are over[,]" i.e., after the evidence had been seized, in order to "gain from any possible unconstitutional actions of the federal officials[.]" Id.; see also Friesen, supra, § 11-3(d)(3) (stating that uniform application of the exclusionary rule to all evidence sought to be admitted in state court would avoid any "covert cooperation to evade state law"); cf. Elkins, 364 U.S. at 221-22, 80 S.Ct. 1437 (stating that, in abolishing the 2002The New Jersey Supreme Court, concurring with the foregoing passage in the Rakas dissent, explained that the majority holding undermined the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule: If indeed this is the invitation extended to law enforcement officials by Rakas and its progeny, then it would obviously be destructive of the time-honored principle that the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is deterrence —"to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty (against unreasonable searches and seizures) in the only effectively available way—by removing the incentive to disregard it." Elkins | 1 | 4 |
Arizona v. Evansgreen2 sentences2022DISCUSSION The exclusionary rule is “a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard against future violations of [constitutional] rights.” Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 10 (1995). 2014But as noted, the U.S. Supreme Court itself recognized, “state courts are absolutely free to interpret state constitutional provisions to accord greater protection to individual rights than do similar provisions of the United States Constitution.” Evans, 514 U.S. at 8 . 29 The most significant difference between the Federal and Hawai#i decisions, to this point at least, is the Supreme Court’s jettison of two of the three purposes of the exclusionary rule – protection of privacy and judicial integrity. | 1 | 3 |
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002However, “the exclusionary rule does not preclude the use of evidence derived from knowledge of incriminating facts ‘gained from an independent source.’ ” Id. (quoting Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920)). 2002However, “the exclusionary rule does not preclude the use of evidence derived from knowledge of incriminating facts ‘gained from an independent source.’ ” Id. (quoting Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920)). | 1 | 3 |
Rossell v. City & County of Honolulugreen2 sentences2001The limited scope of the exclusionary rule was defined by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Rossell v. City and County, 59 Haw. 173 , 579 P.2d 663 (1978). 2001The limited scope of the exclusionary rule was defined by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Rossell v. City and County, 59 Haw. 173 , 579 P.2d 663 (1978). | 1 | 3 |
State v. McKnight.green2 sentences2024Quoting State v. McKnight, 131 Hawai‘i 379, 398, 319 P.3d 298, 317 (2013), the ICA noted that the exclusionary rule’s purposes include “(1) judicial 13 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** integrity, (2) the protection of individual privacy, and (3) deterrence of illegal police misconduct.” James, 2023 WL 3017974 , at *6. 2015We further conclude that suppression of the evidence obtained pursuant to the anticipatory search warrant would not further the purposes underlying Hawaii’s exclusionary rule of “(1) judicial integrity, (2) the protection of individual privacy, and (3) deterrence of illegal police misconduct.” McKnight, 131 Hawai'i at 398 , 319 P.3d at 317 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wolf v. Colorado
red
2 sentences2013The exclusionary rule stands for the proposition that in a “prosecution, the Fourth Amendment bars the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure.” Mapp, 367 U.S. at 647 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 (citing Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 28 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949)). 2013The exclusionary rule stands for the proposition that in a “prosecution, the Fourth Amendment bars the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure.” Mapp, 367 U.S. at 647 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 (citing Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 28 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949)). | 3 | 1961–2013 |
Nix v. Williams
green
2 sentences2012Although inapplicable to the case before it, Williams II concluded that the independent source doctrine was “wholly consistent with and justifie[d] adoption of the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.” Id. at 432 . 1999In contrast to the United States Supreme Court, which requires the prosecution to satisfy the preponderance of evidence burden of proof before allowing evidence to be admitted under the inevitable discovery rule, Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984), the Hawaii Supreme Court “require[s] the prosecution to present clear and convincing evidence that any evidence obtained in violation of article I, section 7 9 [of the Hawaii State Constitution], would inevitably have been discovered by lawful means before such evidence may be admitted under the inevitable di | 2 | 1999–2012 |
| Kau v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance green | 2 | 2005–2009 |
| State v. Alston green | 2 | 2002–2002 |
| Gray v. Administrative Director of Court green | 2 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Kirn green | 2 | 1995–1999 |
| Harris v. New York green | 2 | 1995–1999 |
| Terry v. Ohio green | 2 | 1984–1995 |
| Cm, Inc. v. The Canadian Indemnity Company green | 2 | 1987–1987 |
| Witters v. United States green | 2 | 1975–1975 |
| People v. . Molineux green | 2 | 1975–1975 |
| Nester v. State green | 2 | 1975–1975 |
| United States v. Nicholas A. Stirone green | 2 | 1975–1975 |
| United States v. Charles Patrick Carney Appeal of Francis Clinton Mahon, Jr green | 2 | 1975–1975 |
| State of Oregon v. Long green | 2 | 1975–1975 |
| Weeks v. United States red | 2 | 1961–1974 |
| Matter of Herbert M. Dowsett Trust green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| United States v. Steven Curtis Waupekenay green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Poaipuni green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Curtis green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Quiday green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Stachler green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Retherford v. Kama green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Hudson v. Michigan green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Commonwealth v. Benson green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Frank v. Maryland red | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| United States v. Mark Steven Hitchcock green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Michigan v. Tucker green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.