poisonous tree doctrine in Arizona

10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2023 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1963 · cited in 5 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1977–2023 2 sentences 1983Further, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, see Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), compels us to conclude that the question by Officer Bechtol and Hein’s reply, both occurring after the Miranda warnings were provided, also should not have been admitted at trial. 1983Further, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, see Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), compels us to conclude that the question by Officer Bechtol and Hein’s reply, both occurring after the Miranda warnings were provided, also should not have been admitted at trial.	1	5
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1920 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1978–2023 2 sentences 1978Among the limitations to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are: (1) the “independent source” doctrine set forth in the early case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, see, Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790 (2nd Cir. 1943); United States v. Seohnlein, 423 F.2d 1051 (4th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 913 , 90 S.Ct. 2215 , 26 L.Ed.2d 570 (1970); and (3) the “attenuated connection” limitation as expressed in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939). 1978Among the limitations to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are: (1) the “independent source” doctrine set forth in the early case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, see, Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790 (2nd Cir. 1943); United States v. Seohnlein, 423 F.2d 1051 (4th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 913 , 90 S.Ct. 2215 , 26 L.Ed.2d 570 (1970); and (3) the “attenuated connection” limitation as expressed in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939).	1	3
Franks v. Delawaregreen scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023See Franks, 438 U.S. at 168 (refusing to “denude the probable-cause requirement of all real meaning”). ¶40 In sum, the trial court found that the detective had acted recklessly in providing false and misleading evidence against Scott to secure a search warrant for his buccal swabs.	1	1
State v. Pricegreen arizctapp · 1976 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020See State v. Price, 27 Ariz. App. 673, 677 (1976) (“We fail to see how the purpose of deterring unlawful police conduct would be furthered by suppressing the testimony of known victims of the armed robberies.”); see also United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 274-75 (1978) (noting that “the exclusionary rule should be invoked with much greater reluctance where the claim is based on a causal relationship between a constitutional violation and the discovery of a live witness than when a similar claim is advanced to support suppression of an inanimate object”); State v. Doughty, 472 N.W.2d 299	1	1
United States v. Ceccolinigreen scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020See State v. Price, 27 Ariz. App. 673, 677 (1976) (“We fail to see how the purpose of deterring unlawful police conduct would be furthered by suppressing the testimony of known victims of the armed robberies.”); see also United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 274-75 (1978) (noting that “the exclusionary rule should be invoked with much greater reluctance where the claim is based on a causal relationship between a constitutional violation and the discovery of a live witness than when a similar claim is advanced to support suppression of an inanimate object”); State v. Doughty, 472 N.W.2d 299	1	1
State v. Doughtygreen minn · 1991 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020See State v. Price, 27 Ariz. App. 673, 677 (1976) (“We fail to see how the purpose of deterring unlawful police conduct would be furthered by suppressing the testimony of known victims of the armed robberies.”); see also United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 274-75 (1978) (noting that “the exclusionary rule should be invoked with much greater reluctance where the claim is based on a causal relationship between a constitutional violation and the discovery of a live witness than when a similar claim is advanced to support suppression of an inanimate object”); State v. Doughty, 472 N.W.2d 299	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Somer v. United States green ca2 · 1943 2 sentences 1978Among the limitations to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are: (1) the "independent source" doctrine set forth in the early case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, see, Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790 (2nd Cir.1943); United States v. Seohnlein, 423 F.2d 1051 (4th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 913 , 90 S.Ct. 2215 , 26 L.Ed.2d 570 (1970); and (3) the "attenuated connection" limitation as expressed in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939). 1978Among the limitations to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are: (1) the “independent source” doctrine set forth in the early case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, see, Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790 (2nd Cir. 1943); United States v. Seohnlein, 423 F.2d 1051 (4th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 913 , 90 S.Ct. 2215 , 26 L.Ed.2d 570 (1970); and (3) the “attenuated connection” limitation as expressed in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939).	2	1978–1978
Nardone v. United States green scotus · 1939 2 sentences 1978Among the limitations to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are: (1) the “independent source” doctrine set forth in the early case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, see, Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790 (2nd Cir. 1943); United States v. Seohnlein, 423 F.2d 1051 (4th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 913 , 90 S.Ct. 2215 , 26 L.Ed.2d 570 (1970); and (3) the “attenuated connection” limitation as expressed in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939). 1978Among the limitations to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are: (1) the “independent source” doctrine set forth in the early case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, see, Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790 (2nd Cir. 1943); United States v. Seohnlein, 423 F.2d 1051 (4th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 913 , 90 S.Ct. 2215 , 26 L.Ed.2d 570 (1970); and (3) the “attenuated connection” limitation as expressed in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939).	2	1978–1978
United States v. Charles W. Seohnlein green ca4 · 1970 2 sentences 1978Among the limitations to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are: (1) the "independent source" doctrine set forth in the early case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, see, Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790 (2nd Cir.1943); United States v. Seohnlein, 423 F.2d 1051 (4th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 913 , 90 S.Ct. 2215 , 26 L.Ed.2d 570 (1970); and (3) the "attenuated connection" limitation as expressed in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939). 1978Among the limitations to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are: (1) the “independent source” doctrine set forth in the early case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, see, Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790 (2nd Cir. 1943); United States v. Seohnlein, 423 F.2d 1051 (4th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 913 , 90 S.Ct. 2215 , 26 L.Ed.2d 570 (1970); and (3) the “attenuated connection” limitation as expressed in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939).	2	1978–1978
Clinton v. United States green scotus · 1970 2 sentences 1978Among the limitations to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are: (1) the "independent source" doctrine set forth in the early case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, see, Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790 (2nd Cir.1943); United States v. Seohnlein, 423 F.2d 1051 (4th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 913 , 90 S.Ct. 2215 , 26 L.Ed.2d 570 (1970); and (3) the "attenuated connection" limitation as expressed in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939). 1978Among the limitations to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are: (1) the “independent source” doctrine set forth in the early case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, see, Somer v. United States, 138 F.2d 790 (2nd Cir. 1943); United States v. Seohnlein, 423 F.2d 1051 (4th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 913 , 90 S.Ct. 2215 , 26 L.Ed.2d 570 (1970); and (3) the “attenuated connection” limitation as expressed in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939).	2	1978–1978
Miranda v. Arizona green scotus · 1966 1 sentence 2018Relying upon Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, Quinerly argued all statements and physical evidence must be suppressed.	1	2018–2018
State v. Fortier green ariz · 1976 2 sentences 1977In this court’s decision in State v. Fortier, 113 Ariz. 332 , 553 P.2d 1206 (1976), we said: “The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, explained at length in Wong Sun v. United States (citation omitted), serves to exclude as evidence not only the direct products but also the indirect products of Fourth Amendment violations. 1977In this court’s decision in State v. Fortier, 113 Ariz. 332 , 553 P.2d 1206 (1976), we said: “The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, explained at length in Wong Sun v. United States (citation omitted), serves to exclude as evidence not only the direct products but also the indirect products of Fourth Amendment violations.	1	1977–1977
Terry v. Ohio green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 1972Consequently no evidence was derived from it under the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” STOP AND DETENTION Defendants Gilliland, Murphy, Scotten and Prince argue that the officers did not have reasonable cause to stop and detain them on the road and that the search of their vehicle was therefore illegal, citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 1972Consequently no evidence was derived from it under the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” STOP AND DETENTION Defendants Gilliland, Murphy, Scotten and Prince argue that the officers did not have reasonable cause to stop and detain them on the road and that the search of their vehicle was therefore illegal, citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).	1	1972–1972

Where else courts name it

PA 73 (1975–2025) TX 57 (1977–2026) IN 55 (1987–2025) IL 46 (1970–2026) CA 45 (1967–2022) WA 43 (1971–2025) NM 41 (1977–2020) NY 37 (1967–2025) MD 36 (1969–2025) FL 34 (1969–2025) MA 33 (1981–2025) MI 31 (1973–2026) KS 30 (1975–2026) CO 27 (1980–2025) HI 23 (1964–2026) OH 22 (1969–2025) SC 20 (1981–2026) NJ 18 (1977–2024) WI 16 (1994–2025) NC 16 (1979–2021) CT 16 (1988–2025) VA 16 (1986–2026) MS 15 (1978–2026) TN 15 (1998–2020) SD 14 (1977–2024) IA 14 (1965–2022) GA 13 (1982–2026) MO 13 (1974–2009) OR 13 (1975–2015) NH 13 (1991–2025) WV 12 (1983–2015) LA 10 (1977–2025) AZ 10 (1972–2023) ID 9 (2000–2023) MT 9 (1979–2024) AL 7 (1973–2008) AR 6 (1979–2009) WY 5 (1976–2011) RI 4 (2014–2024) DE 4 (1990–2025) KY 4 (2011–2024) ND 3 (1979–2021) VT 3 (2007–2019) MN 3 (1986–1999) OK 3 (1973–2015) DC 3 (1977–2021) AK 2 (1973–1983) NV 2 (1976–2025) ME 2 (2000–2010) NE 2 (2008–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check