9 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Nix v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2015See Pope, 686 F.3d at 1084 . ¶20 Furthermore, the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence that the State can show by a preponderance of the evidence “would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 448 (1984); see State v. Castaneda, 150 Ariz. 382, 387 (1986) (recognizing the inevitable discovery doctrine in Arizona). 2014The exclusionary rule, however, does not apply “to evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality,” or to evidence “that would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.” Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 537, 539, 540-44 (1988); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 448 (1984). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Travis Popegreen1 sentence2015See Pope, 686 F.3d at 1084 . ¶20 Furthermore, the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence that the State can show by a preponderance of the evidence “would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 448 (1984); see State v. Castaneda, 150 Ariz. 382, 387 (1986) (recognizing the inevitable discovery doctrine in Arizona). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Castanedagreen1 sentence2015See Pope, 686 F.3d at 1084 . ¶20 Furthermore, the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence that the State can show by a preponderance of the evidence “would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 448 (1984); see State v. Castaneda, 150 Ariz. 382, 387 (1986) (recognizing the inevitable discovery doctrine in Arizona). | 1 | 1 |
Murray v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2014The exclusionary rule, however, does not apply “to evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality,” or to evidence “that would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.” Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 537, 539, 540-44 (1988); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 448 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. D'ONOFRIOgreen2 sentences1996See Commonwealth v. D'Onofrio, 396 Mass. 711 , 488 N.E.2d 410, 412 (1986) ("Even though there is no requirement that the affidavits themselves demonstrate that [the observations] were lawful, if as a matter of fact, the observations resulted from a violation of the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights, the observations cannot support the issuance of search warrants, and any evidence traceable to those observations must be suppressed."); see also Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 468 , 105 S.Ct. 2778, 2781 , 86 L.Ed.2d 370 (1985) (Fourth Amendment requires exclusion of evidence obtained by means 1996See Commonwealth v. D'Onofrio, 396 Mass. 711 , 488 N.E.2d 410, 412 (1986) ("Even though there is no requirement that the affidavits themselves demonstrate that [the observations] were lawful, if as a matter of fact, the observations resulted from a violation of the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights, the observations cannot support the issuance of search warrants, and any evidence traceable to those observations must be suppressed."); see also Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 468 , 105 S.Ct. 2778, 2781 , 86 L.Ed.2d 370 (1985) (Fourth Amendment requires exclusion of evidence obtained by means | 1 | 1 |
Maryland v. MacOngreen2 sentences1996See Commonwealth v. D'Onofrio, 396 Mass. 711 , 488 N.E.2d 410, 412 (1986) ("Even though there is no requirement that the affidavits themselves demonstrate that [the observations] were lawful, if as a matter of fact, the observations resulted from a violation of the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights, the observations cannot support the issuance of search warrants, and any evidence traceable to those observations must be suppressed."); see also Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 468 , 105 S.Ct. 2778, 2781 , 86 L.Ed.2d 370 (1985) (Fourth Amendment requires exclusion of evidence obtained by means 1996See Commonwealth v. D'Onofrio, 396 Mass. 711 , 488 N.E.2d 410, 412 (1986) ("Even though there is no requirement that the affidavits themselves demonstrate that [the observations] were lawful, if as a matter of fact, the observations resulted from a violation of the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights, the observations cannot support the issuance of search warrants, and any evidence traceable to those observations must be suppressed."); see also Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 468 , 105 S.Ct. 2778, 2781 , 86 L.Ed.2d 370 (1985) (Fourth Amendment requires exclusion of evidence obtained by means | 1 | 1 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences1996Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 111 , 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1512 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2333 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). 1996Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 111 , 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1512 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2333 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Owen
green
2 sentences1967State v. Owen, 96 Ariz. 274 , 394 P.2d 206 (1964). 1967State v. Owen, 96 Ariz. 274 , 394 P.2d 206 (1964). | 2 | 1966–1967 |
State v. Ward
green
1 sentence2023Specifically, after the defendant testified he had acted out of self-defense, the prosecutor asked him “whether a man acting in self-defense would have naturally told the police of his defense.” Id. at 392 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006The trial court also found that K.’s statements to Ashley and Ron were admissible because they were not testimonial and therefore did not violate the Sixth Amendment standards recently articulated by the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L. 2006The trial court also found that K.’s statements to Ashley and Ron were admissible because they were not testimonial and therefore did not violate the Sixth Amendment standards recently articulated by the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Aguilar v. Texas
red
2 sentences1996Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 111 , 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1512 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2333 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). 1996Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 111 , 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1512 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2333 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.