11 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2005The court concluded that despite the Fourth Amendment violation, however, suppression of the evidence found during the search was not required under the federal exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), because the officers, not the media representative, discovered the contraband. 2005The court concluded that despite the Fourth Amendment violation, however, suppression of the evidence found during the search was not required under the federal exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), because the officers, not the media representative, discovered the contraband. | 1 | 4 |
Hudson v. Michigangreen2 sentences2014Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 594, 599 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006). 2014Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 594, 599 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2012See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 12 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (explaining that the federal exclusionary rule is a “principal mode of discouraging unlawful police conduct”); Grier v. State, 868 N.E.2d 443, 445 (Ind.2007) (holding that the Indiana Constitution requires suppression of evidence discovered during an unconstitutional search). 5 We review de novo the ultimate question of whether the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated. 2012See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 12 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (explaining that the federal exclusionary rule is a “principal mode of discouraging unlawful police conduct”); Grier v. State, 868 N.E.2d 443, 445 (Ind.2007) (holding that the Indiana Constitution requires suppression of evidence discovered during an unconstitutional search). 5 We review de novo the ultimate question of whether the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated. | 1 | 1 |
Howard v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Howard v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1208,1210 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Grier v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 12 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (explaining that the federal exclusionary rule is a “principal mode of discouraging unlawful police conduct”); Grier v. State, 868 N.E.2d 443, 445 (Ind.2007) (holding that the Indiana Constitution requires suppression of evidence discovered during an unconstitutional search). 5 We review de novo the ultimate question of whether the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated. | 1 | 1 |
Callender v. Stategreen2 sentences2006More than 80 years ago, in Callender v. State, 193 Ind. 91 , 138 N.E. 817, 819 (1922), our Supreme Court adopted an exclusionary rule under Article I, Section 11, which was almost 40 years before the United States Supreme Court made the federal exclusionary rule applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). 2006More than 80 years ago, in Callender v. State, 193 Ind. 91 , 138 N.E. 817, 819 (1922), our Supreme Court adopted an exclusionary rule under Article I, Section 11, which was almost 40 years before the United States Supreme Court made the federal exclusionary rule applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). | 1 | 1 |
Vara v. Sharpgreen1 sentence2002Id. at 852. | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scottgreen2 sentences1999See also Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363-365 , 118 S.Ct. 2014, 2020 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998) (holding that the federal exclusionary rule does not extend to proceedings other than criminal trials and does not bar the introduction at parole revocation hearings of evidence seized in violation of parolees’ Fourth Amendment rights). 1999See also Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363-365 , 118 S.Ct. 2014, 2020 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998) (holding that the federal exclusionary rule does not extend to proceedings other than criminal trials and does not bar the introduction at parole revocation hearings of evidence seized in violation of parolees’ Fourth Amendment rights). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2006More than 80 years ago, in Callender v. State, 193 Ind. 91 , 138 N.E. 817, 819 (1922), our Supreme Court adopted an exclusionary rule under Article I, Section 11, which was almost 40 years before the United States Supreme Court made the federal exclusionary rule applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). 2006More than 80 years ago, in Callender v. State, 193 Ind. 91 , 138 N.E. 817, 819 (1922), our Supreme Court adopted an exclusionary rule under Article I, Section 11, which was almost 40 years before the United States Supreme Court made the federal exclusionary rule applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). | 2 | 2006–2018 |
Membres v. State
green
1 sentence2018Membres , 889 N.E.2d at 274 (citing Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Blalock v. State
green
2 sentences1988That exception was adopted by our supreme court in Blalock v. State (1985), Ind., 483 N.E.2d 439 . 1988That exception was adopted by our supreme court in Blalock v. State (1985), Ind., 483 N.E.2d 439 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York
green
2 sentences1988Those circumstances include: The exception we recognize today will also not apply in cases where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role in the manner condemned in Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2319 , 60 L.Ed.2d 920 (1979); in such circumstances, no reasonably well trained officer should rely on the warrant. 1988Those circumstances include: The exception we recognize today will also not apply in cases where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role in the manner condemned in Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2319 , 60 L.Ed.2d 920 (1979); in such circumstances, no reasonably well trained officer should rely on the warrant. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Weeks v. United States
red
2 sentences1971And after Wolf, supra, the federal exclusionary rule fashioned in Weeks v. U. S. (1914), 232 U. S. 383 , 34 S. Ct. 341 , 58 L. 1971And after Wolf, supra, the federal exclusionary rule fashioned in Weeks v. U. S. (1914), 232 U. S. 383 , 34 S. Ct. 341 , 58 L. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.