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.
12 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miles v. Stategreen2 sentences2019"Only those acts which violate a person's privacy rights or property interests are subject to the state or federal exclusionary rule." Id. at 35 n.33. 2017See Riley v. California, 573 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2488-91 , 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (discussing the scope of privacy interests at stake in a cell phone search); see Miles, 241 S.W.3d at 36 n.33 (only those acts which violate a person’s privacy rights or property rights are subject' to the state or federal exclusionary rule). | 7 | 9 |
Riley v. Cal. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017See Riley v. California, 573 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2488-91 , 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (discussing the scope of privacy interests at stake in a cell phone search); see Miles, 241 S.W.3d at 36 n.33 (only those acts which violate a person’s privacy rights or property rights are subject' to the state or federal exclusionary rule). 2017See Riley v. California, 573 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2488-91 , 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (discussing the scope of privacy interests at stake in a cell phone search); see Miles, 241 S.W.3d at 36 n.33 (only those acts which violate a person’s privacy rights or property rights are subject' to the state or federal exclusionary rule). | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2015And in Miles, the Court held that a person’s violation of traffic laws in order to make a citizen’s arrest did not implicate article 38.23, noting that “only those acts which violate a person’s privacy rights or property interests are subject to the state or federal exclusionary rule.” 241 S.W.3d at 36, 46 ; see also Wilson v. State, 311 S.W. 3d 452, 459 (Tex. Crim. 2015Article 38.23(a) prohibits the use of evidence obtained in violation of the law.9 But not every violation of the law is subject to exclusion under article 38.23.10 This Court has not applied the plain meaning of the statute and instead has read into it a requirement that the violation be related “to the purpose of the exclusionary rule or to the prevention of the illegal procurement of evidence of crime.”11 In Miles v. State, this Court held that a person’s violation of traffic laws in order to make a citizen’s arrest did not implicate article 38.23, noting that “only those acts which violate | 2 | 2 |
Rocha v. Stategreen2 sentences2015And in Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1, 18-19 (Tex. Crim. 2015And in Rocha v. State, 16 S.W.3d 1, 18-19 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Chavez v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Chavez v. State , 9 S.W.3d 817, 822-23 (Tex. Crim. 2007See, e.g., Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 822-23 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (Price, J., concurring). | 2 | 2 |
Segundo v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Miles, 241 S.W.3d at 36 n. 33 (“Only those acts which violate a person’s privacy rights or property interests are subject to the state or federal exclusionary rule.”); cf. Segundo, 270 S.W.3d at 99 ("Regarding his argument concerning the potential for abuse, appellant has made no showing that any .such abuse has occurred in the Texas CODIS system, much less that such abuse occurred in his case.”). . | 1 | 1 |
Oswaldo Javier Reyes v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Reyes v. State, 361 S.W.3d 222, 230 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, pet. ref’d).6 Only those acts which violate a person’s privacy rights or property interests are subject to the state or federal exclusionary rule. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.