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.
10 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota 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. Bollgreen2 sentences2024Although the specially concurring opinion relies on Boll to conclude that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply to the case at hand, Boll does not refer to an alternative source of “investigation,” but rather an “alternative legal means” for the seizure of the evidence that “has been realized[.]” 2002 S.D. 114 , ¶ 21, 651 N.W.2d at 716–17. 2024See State v. Boll, 2002 S.D. 114 , ¶ 14, 651 N.W.2d 710, 715 (providing that although we review the circuit court’s findings of fact for clear error, “[o]nce the facts have been determined, [ ]the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo”). [¶27.] This Court has explained that the inevitable discovery doctrine “applies where evidence may have been seized illegally but where an alternative legal means of discovery . . . would inevitably have led to the same result.” Smith, -15- #30023 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 25, 851 N.W.2d at 726 (omission in original). | 3 | 3 |
Nix v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2009Guthrie objected to the court’s conclusion, asserting that a dispute existed concerning the court’s finding of inevitable discovery since the State presented no evidence to support that theory. [¶ 24.] In Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984), the United States Supreme Court adopted the inevitable discovery doctrine as an exception to the exclusionary rule. 2009Guthrie objected to the court’s conclusion, asserting that a dispute existed concerning the court’s finding of inevitable discovery since the State presented no evidence to support that theory. [¶ 24.] In Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984), the United States Supreme Court adopted the inevitable discovery doctrine as an exception to the exclusionary rule. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Wagonergreen2 sentences2017“The inevitable discovery doctrine applies where evidence may have been seized illegally, but where an alternative legal means of discovery, such- as a routine police inventory search, would inevitably have led to the same result.” State v. Boll, 2002 S.D. 114 , ¶ 21, 651 N.W.2d 710, 716 (quoting State v. Wagoner, 130 N.M. 274 , 24 P.3d 306, 311 (N.M. 2017“The inevitable discovery doctrine applies where evidence may have been seized illegally, but where an alternative legal means of discovery, such- as a routine police inventory search, would inevitably have led to the same result.” State v. Boll, 2002 S.D. 114 , ¶ 21, 651 N.W.2d 710, 716 (quoting State v. Wagoner, 130 N.M. 274 , 24 P.3d 306, 311 (N.M. | 2 | 2 |
Murray v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002“The inevitable discovery doctrine ... is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.” Murray, 487 U.S. at 539 , 108 S.Ct. at 2534 , 101 L.Ed.2d at 481-82 (emphasis in original). 2002“The inevitable discovery doctrine ... is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.” Murray, 487 U.S. at 539 , 108 S.Ct. at 2534 , 101 L.Ed.2d at 481-82 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2 |
Guthrie v. Webergreen1 sentence2024See Guthrie, 2009 S.D. 42 , ¶ 26, 767 N.W.2d at 548 (upholding the application of the inevitable discovery doctrine after determining it was logical to conclude that law enforcement would have obtained a search warrant to seize evidence given that they had an independent source that would have supported the warrant). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Kelvin Baezgreen1 sentence2024The independent source doctrine, on the other hand, “applies if the evidence both would have been acquired by lawful means had the unlawful search not occurred and in fact was acquired (or reacquired) by these lawful means.” United States v. Baez, 983 F.3d 1029, 1037 (8th Cir. 2020). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mousseauxgreen2 sentences2024See e.g., Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 15, 839 N.W.2d at 563 (independent source doctrine); State v. Smith, 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 25, 851 N.W.2d 719, 726 (inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Mousseaux, 2020 S.D. 35, ¶ 14 , 945 N.W.2d 548, 552 (attenuation doctrine). -12- #30023 [¶24.] The circuit court acknowledged all three exceptions to the exclusionary rule and noted the State’s argument that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies under the circumstances. 2024See e.g., Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 15, 839 N.W.2d at 563 (independent source doctrine); State v. Smith, 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 25, 851 N.W.2d 719, 726 (inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Mousseaux, 2020 S.D. 35, ¶ 14 , 945 N.W.2d 548, 552 (attenuation doctrine). -12- #30023 [¶24.] The circuit court acknowledged all three exceptions to the exclusionary rule and noted the State’s argument that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies under the circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Heneygreen1 sentence2024See e.g., Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 15, 839 N.W.2d at 563 (independent source doctrine); State v. Smith, 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 25, 851 N.W.2d 719, 726 (inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Mousseaux, 2020 S.D. 35, ¶ 14 , 945 N.W.2d 548, 552 (attenuation doctrine). -12- #30023 [¶24.] The circuit court acknowledged all three exceptions to the exclusionary rule and noted the State’s argument that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies under the circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Boll, 2002 S.D. 114 , ¶ 14, 651 N.W.2d 710, 715 (providing that although we review the circuit court’s findings of fact for clear error, “[o]nce the facts have been determined, [ ]the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo”). [¶27.] This Court has explained that the inevitable discovery doctrine “applies where evidence may have been seized illegally but where an alternative legal means of discovery . . . would inevitably have led to the same result.” Smith, -15- #30023 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 25, 851 N.W.2d at 726 (omission in original). 2024See e.g., Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 15, 839 N.W.2d at 563 (independent source doctrine); State v. Smith, 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 25, 851 N.W.2d 719, 726 (inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Mousseaux, 2020 S.D. 35, ¶ 14 , 945 N.W.2d 548, 552 (attenuation doctrine). -12- #30023 [¶24.] The circuit court acknowledged all three exceptions to the exclusionary rule and noted the State’s argument that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies under the circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. RADLEgreen1 sentence2017See Johnson v. Radle, 2008 S.D. 23 , ¶ 19, 747 N.W.2d 644, 652 . [¶22.] Nonetheless, during oral argument, Hemminger alternatively asserted that the circuit court erred when it upheld the seizure of his DNA based on the doctrine of inevitable discovery. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2009People v. Clark, 5 Cal.4th 950 , 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099, 1125-26 (1993), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11 (2009); People v. Jones, 2008 WL 2253164 , *3 (Cal.Ct.App.) (unpublished) (quoting People v. Watkins, 26 Cal.App.4th 19 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 452, 458 (1994)); State v. Dickinson, 343 Mont. 301 , 184 P.3d 305, 309-10 (2008); accord United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495, 505 (6th Cir.2007) (court raised the inevitable discovery doctrine sua sponte). 2009People v. Clark, 5 Cal.4th 950 , 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099, 1125-26 (1993), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11 (2009); People v. Jones, 2008 WL 2253164 , *3 (Cal.Ct.App.) (unpublished) (quoting People v. Watkins, 26 Cal.App.4th 19 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 452, 458 (1994)); State v. Dickinson, 343 Mont. 301 , 184 P.3d 305, 309-10 (2008); accord United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495, 505 (6th Cir.2007) (court raised the inevitable discovery doctrine sua sponte). | 1 | 1 |
Douglas v. Condongreen2 sentences2009See Douglas v. Dobbs, 419 F.3d 1097, 1102 (10th Cir.2005) ("concluding that protection of a right to privacy in a person's prescription drug records, which contain intimate facts of a personal nature, is sufficiently similar to other areas already protected within the ambit of privacy"); see also Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 602 , 97 S.Ct. 869, 878 , 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977) (determining that individuals have a limited right to privacy in their medical records). 2009See Douglas v. Dobbs, 419 F.3d 1097, 1102 (10th Cir.2005) (“concluding that protection of a right to privacy in a person’s prescription drug records, which contain intimate facts of a personal nature, is sufficiently similar to other areas already protected within the ambit of privacy”); see also Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 602 , 97 S.Ct. 869, 878 , 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977) (determining that individuals have a limited right to privacy in their medical records). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dickinsongreen2 sentences2009People v. Clark, 5 Cal.4th 950 , 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099, 1125-26 (1993), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11 (2009); People v. Jones, 2008 WL 2253164 , *3 (Cal.Ct.App.) (unpublished) (quoting People v. Watkins, 26 Cal.App.4th 19 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 452, 458 (1994)); State v. Dickinson, 343 Mont. 301 , 184 P.3d 305, 309-10 (2008); accord United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495, 505 (6th Cir.2007) (court raised the inevitable discovery doctrine sua sponte). 2009People v. Clark, 5 Cal.4th 950 , 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099, 1125-26 (1993), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11 (2009); People v. Jones, 2008 WL 2253164 , *3 (Cal.Ct.App.) (unpublished) (quoting People v. Watkins, 26 Cal.App.4th 19 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 452, 458 (1994)); State v. Dickinson, 343 Mont. 301 , 184 P.3d 305, 309-10 (2008); accord United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495, 505 (6th Cir.2007) (court raised the inevitable discovery doctrine sua sponte). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Watkinsgreen2 sentences2009People v. Clark, 5 Cal.4th 950 , 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099, 1125-26 (1993), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11 (2009); People v. Jones, 2008 WL 2253164 , *3 (Cal.Ct.App.) (unpublished) (quoting People v. Watkins, 26 Cal.App.4th 19 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 452, 458 (1994)); State v. Dickinson, 343 Mont. 301 , 184 P.3d 305, 309-10 (2008); accord United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495, 505 (6th Cir.2007) (court raised the inevitable discovery doctrine sua sponte). 2009People v. Clark, 5 Cal.4th 950 , 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099, 1125-26 (1993), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11 (2009); People v. Jones, 2008 WL 2253164 , *3 (Cal.Ct.App.) (unpublished) (quoting People v. Watkins, 26 Cal.App.4th 19 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 452, 458 (1994)); State v. Dickinson, 343 Mont. 301 , 184 P.3d 305, 309-10 (2008); accord United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495, 505 (6th Cir.2007) (court raised the inevitable discovery doctrine sua sponte). | 1 | 1 |
Whalen v. Roegreen2 sentences2009See Douglas v. Dobbs, 419 F.3d 1097, 1102 (10th Cir.2005) (“concluding that protection of a right to privacy in a person’s prescription drug records, which contain intimate facts of a personal nature, is sufficiently similar to other areas already protected within the ambit of privacy”); see also Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 602 , 97 S.Ct. 869, 878 , 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977) (determining that individuals have a limited right to privacy in their medical records). 2009See Douglas v. Dobbs, 419 F.3d 1097, 1102 (10th Cir.2005) (“concluding that protection of a right to privacy in a person’s prescription drug records, which contain intimate facts of a personal nature, is sufficiently similar to other areas already protected within the ambit of privacy”); see also Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 602 , 97 S.Ct. 869, 878 , 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977) (determining that individuals have a limited right to privacy in their medical records). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Garciagreen2 sentences2009People v. Clark, 5 Cal.4th 950 , 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099, 1125-26 (1993), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal. Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11 (2009); People v. Jones, 2008 WL 2253164 , *3 (Cal.Ct.App.) (unpublished) (quoting People v. Watkins, 26 Cal.App.4th 19 , 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 452, 458 (1994)); State v. Dickinson, 343 Mont. 301 , 184 P.3d 305, 309-10 (2008); accord United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495, 505 (6th Cir.2007) (court raised the inevitable discovery doctrine sua sponte). 2009People v. Clark, 5 Cal.4th 950 , 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099, 1125-26 (1993), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11 (2009); People v. Jones, 2008 WL 2253164 , *3 (Cal.Ct.App.) (unpublished) (quoting People v. Watkins, 26 Cal.App.4th 19 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 452, 458 (1994)); State v. Dickinson, 343 Mont. 301 , 184 P.3d 305, 309-10 (2008); accord United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495, 505 (6th Cir.2007) (court raised the inevitable discovery doctrine sua sponte). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shearergreen2 sentences2002Under this exception, “illegally obtained evidence may be admitted if the evidence ultimately would have been discovered by legitimate means.” State v. Shearer, 1996 SD 52, ¶ 21 , 548 N.W.2d 792, 796-97 (citing Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377, 387-88 (1984)). 2002Under this exception, “illegally obtained evidence may be admitted if the evidence ultimately would have been discovered by legitimate means.” State v. Shearer, 1996 SD 52, ¶ 21 , 548 N.W.2d 792, 796-97 (citing Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377, 387-88 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Satter v. Solemgreen1 sentence1996See, e.g., Satter v. Solem, 458 N.W.2d 762, 767 (S.D.1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hudson v. Michigan
green
2 sentences2020Nix v. (continued . . .) -5- #28941 connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that ‘the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence[.]’” Strieff, __ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2061 (quoting Hudson, 547 U.S. at 593 , 126 S. Ct. at 2164 ). 2020Nix v. (continued . . .) -5- #28941 connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that ‘the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence[.]’” Strieff, __ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2061 (quoting Hudson, 547 U.S. at 593 , 126 S. Ct. at 2164 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Utah v. Strieff
green
1 sentence2020Nix v. (continued . . .) -5- #28941 connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that ‘the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence[.]’” Strieff, __ U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 2061 (quoting Hudson, 547 U.S. at 593 , 126 S. Ct. at 2164 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Jucht
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Doolin
green
2 sentences2009People v. Clark, 5 Cal.4th 950 , 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099, 1125-26 (1993), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11 (2009); People v. Jones, 2008 WL 2253164 , *3 (Cal.Ct.App.) (unpublished) (quoting People v. Watkins, 26 Cal.App.4th 19 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 452, 458 (1994)); State v. Dickinson, 343 Mont. 301 , 184 P.3d 305, 309-10 (2008); accord United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495, 505 (6th Cir.2007) (court raised the inevitable discovery doctrine sua sponte). 2009People v. Clark, 5 Cal.4th 950 , 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099, 1125-26 (1993), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 , 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209 , 198 P.3d 11 (2009); People v. Jones, 2008 WL 2253164 , *3 (Cal.Ct.App.) (unpublished) (quoting People v. Watkins, 26 Cal.App.4th 19 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 452, 458 (1994)); State v. Dickinson, 343 Mont. 301 , 184 P.3d 305, 309-10 (2008); accord United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495, 505 (6th Cir.2007) (court raised the inevitable discovery doctrine sua sponte). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Minnesota v. Dickerson
green
2 sentences1999Under the decision in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 373-74 , 113 S.Ct. 2130, 2136 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993), an officer can seize contraband detected during a protective pat-down search provided the search does not exceed the limits announced in Terry . [¶ 12.] Here, we need not decide whether Pederson had reasonable grounds to pat Hirning down for weapons, whether the subsequent seizure of drugs in his pocket exceeded the scope of a legitimate patdown, or even whether the inevitable discovery doctrine justified admitting the evidence. 1999Under the decision in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 373-74 , 113 S.Ct. 2130, 2136 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993), an officer can seize contraband detected during a protective pat-down search provided the search does not exceed the limits announced in Terry . [¶ 12.] Here, we need not decide whether Pederson had reasonable grounds to pat Hirning down for weapons, whether the subsequent seizure of drugs in his pocket exceeded the scope of a legitimate patdown, or even whether the inevitable discovery doctrine justified admitting the evidence. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.