9 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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. Huddlestongreen2 sentences2010State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666, 676 (Tenn.1996). 2010State v. Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666, 676 (Tenn.1996). | 2 | 4 |
Black v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Similarly, in Black v. State, 871 P.2d 35, 39 (Okla.Crim.App.1994), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held the lack of a timely probable cause determination does not require suppression of evidence seized from the defendant immediately after his lawful arrest. 2005Similarly, in Black v. State, 871 P.2d 35, 39 (Okla.Crim.App.1994), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held the lack of a timely probable cause determination does not require suppression of evidence seized from the defendant immediately after his lawful arrest. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Terry Norris v. Jerry Lester
green
2 sentences2016The Sixth Circuit concluded that “there is a reasonable probability that the confession would have been suppressed if [Petitioner]’s appellate counsel had raised the McLaughlin issue in a reasonably competent manner and persuaded the court on direct appeal that [Petitioner]’s pre- confession detention was longer than 48 hours.” Id. 2014Norris, 545 F. App’x at 326-69 . -17- After the Sixth Circuit’s judgment, the State reopened the Defendant’s appeal to allow him to raise the McLaughlin issue. | 2 | 2014–2016 |
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin
green
2 sentences2015In McLaughlin, the Supreme Court explained the circumstances in which a proper warrantless arrest can lead to a Fourth Amendment violation if a probable-cause determination is not held promptly. 500 U.S. at 47 , 111 S.Ct. 1661 . 2015In McLaughlin, the Supreme Court explained the circumstances in which a proper warrantless arrest can lead to a Fourth Amendment violation if a probable-cause determination is not held promptly. 500 U.S. at 47 , 111 S.Ct. 1661 . | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Wong Sun v. United States
green
2 sentences2005The confession, in other words, would not constitute “fruit of the poisonous tree.” See Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d at 675 (adopting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S. Ct. 407 (1963)).4 As for Criminal Procedure Rule 5(a), it would not have provided a successful avenue to suppress the petitioner’s confession. 2005The confession, in other words, would not constitute “fruit of the poisonous tree.” See Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d at 675 (adopting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S. Ct. 407 (1963)).4 As for Criminal Procedure Rule 5(a), it would not have provided a successful avenue to suppress the petitioner’s confession. | 2 | 1998–2005 |
Marvin Fullerton v. United States
green
2 sentences2005The Court reasoned that the evidence was “not obtained pursuant to the McLaughlin violation.” Id. 2005The Court reasoned that the evidence was “not obtained pursuant to the McLaughlin violation.” Id. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1998Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d at 674 (citing Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 598 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2259 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 416 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). 1998Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d at 674 (citing Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 598 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2259 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 416 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.