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.
62 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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. Welchgreen2 sentences2008These three jur-isprudentially created doctrines which prevent the suppression of evidence are: (1) the independent source doctrine, (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, and (3) the attenuation doctrine, [footnote omitted] Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 487 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 455 (1963); U.S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Guy, 575 So.2d 429 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), writ denied 578 So.2d 930 (La.1991). 2002These Lthree jurisprudentially created doctrines which prevent the suppression of evidence are: (1) the independent source doctrine, (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, and (3) the attenuation doctrine. [footnote omitted] Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 487 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 455 (1963); U.S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Guy, 575 So.2d 429 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), writ denied 578 So.2d 930 (La.1991). | 9 | 15 |
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2008These three jur-isprudentially created doctrines which prevent the suppression of evidence are: (1) the independent source doctrine, (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, and (3) the attenuation doctrine, [footnote omitted] Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 487 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 455 (1963); U.S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Guy, 575 So.2d 429 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), writ denied 578 So.2d 930 (La.1991). 2008These three jur-isprudentially created doctrines which prevent the suppression of evidence are: (1) the independent source doctrine, (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, and (3) the attenuation doctrine, [footnote omitted] Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 487 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 455 (1963); U.S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Guy, 575 So.2d 429 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), writ denied 578 So.2d 930 (La.1991). | 5 | 7 |
Nix v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2025Application of the inevitable discovery doctrine thus “involves no speculative elements but focuses on demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment....” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. at 2509 n. 5; State v. Vigne, 820 So.2d at 539 . 2025Application of the inevitable discovery doctrine thus “involves no speculative elements but focuses on demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment....” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. at 2509 n. 5; State v. Vigne, 820 So.2d at 539 . | 3 | 30 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2014Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); State v. Nelson, 459 So.2d 510 (La.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1030 , 105 S.Ct. 2050 , 85 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985); State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). 2000Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); State v. Nelson, 459 So.2d 510 (La.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1030 , 105 S.Ct. 2050 , 85 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985); State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). | 2 | 4 |
Murray v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025The inevitable discovery doctrine “is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Because 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 v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 539 , 108 S.Ct. 2529, 2534 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988). 2025The inevitable discovery doctrine “is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Because 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 v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 539 , 108 S.Ct. 2529, 2534 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988). | 1 | 13 |
State v. Leegreen2 sentences2025In the case of State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La. 1/16/08), 976 So.2d 109, 127 , the Louisiana Supreme Court summarized the inevitable discovery doctrine as follows: One of the theories courts use in addressing “fruit of the poisonous tree” issues is the inevitable discovery rule. 2025In the case of State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La. 1/16/08), 976 So.2d 109, 127 , the Louisiana Supreme Court summarized the inevitable discovery doctrine as follows: One of the theories courts use in addressing “fruit of the poisonous tree” issues is the inevitable discovery rule. | 1 | 12 |
State v. Vignegreen2 sentences2025Application of the inevitable discovery doctrine thus “involves no speculative elements but focuses on demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment....” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. at 2509 n. 5; State v. Vigne, 820 So.2d at 539 . 2025Application of the inevitable discovery doctrine thus “involves no speculative elements but focuses on demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment....” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. at 2509 n. 5; State v. Vigne, 820 So.2d at 539 . | 1 | 10 |
State v. Guygreen2 sentences2008These three jur-isprudentially created doctrines which prevent the suppression of evidence are: (1) the independent source doctrine, (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, and (3) the attenuation doctrine, [footnote omitted] Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 487 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 455 (1963); U.S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Guy, 575 So.2d 429 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), writ denied 578 So.2d 930 (La.1991). 2002These Lthree jurisprudentially created doctrines which prevent the suppression of evidence are: (1) the independent source doctrine, (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, and (3) the attenuation doctrine. [footnote omitted] Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 487 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 455 (1963); U.S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Guy, 575 So.2d 429 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), writ denied 578 So.2d 930 (La.1991). | 1 | 10 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2014Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); State v. Nelson, 459 So.2d 510 (La.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1030 , 105 S.Ct. 2050 , 85 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985); State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). 2000Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); State v. Nelson, 459 So.2d 510 (La.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1030 , 105 S.Ct. 2050 , 85 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985); State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Irbygreen2 sentences2008See also State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Irby, 93-2220 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/4/94) , 632 So.2d 801 . 2001See also State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Irby, 93-2220 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/4/94) , 632 So.2d 801 . | 1 | 4 |
Boyd v. North Carolinagreen2 sentences2014Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); State v. Nelson, 459 So.2d 510 (La.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1030 , 105 S.Ct. 2050 , 85 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985); State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). 2000Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); State v. Nelson, 459 So.2d 510 (La.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1030 , 105 S.Ct. 2050 , 85 L.Ed.2d 322 (1985); State v. Clark, 499 So.2d 332 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2017State v. Jones, 12-0438, p. 21 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/13/13), 119 So.3d 9, 17 (citing State v. Martello, 98-2066, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/17/99), 748 So.2d 1192, 1201 ). 2016On application for rehearing, we amended the opinion for clarification “to delete any suggestion that the search incident to arrest exception [wa]s applicable,” emphasizing that “the search incident to arrest exception does not apply here because the defendant .was handcuffed and downstairs.” Id., p. 20, 119 So.3d at 22-23 . | 1 | 2 |
LK v. Reedgreen2 sentences1997See also State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Irby, 93-2220 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2/4/94), 632 So.2d 801 , writ den. 94-0580 (La.4/29/94), 637 So.2d 461 . 1995See State v. Irby, 93-2220 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2/4/94) 632 So.2d 801 , writ denied, 94-0580 (La. 4/29/94) 637 So.2d 461 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Brockgreen1 sentence2021See State v. Brock, 2015- 2165 ( La. 2/ 24/ 17), 210 So. 3d 276 , 277 n. 1 ( per curiam) ("[ a] lthough, as the court of appeal reasoned, it is conceivable that an exception to the warrant requirement could apply in cases involving pharmacy records, the burden was on the S] tate to prove that an exception applied to the initial warrantless search. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2019See United States v. Gant, 759 F.2d 484, 487-89 (5th Cir. 1985); State v. Vigne, 01-2940, p. 9 (La. 6/21/02), 820 So.2d 533, 539 (citing Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984)); State v. Edwards, 434 So.2d 395, 397 (La. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Richard Allen Gant, John Roger Casquilla, and Deborah Corrinne Schneidergreen1 sentence2019See United States v. Gant, 759 F.2d 484, 487-89 (5th Cir. 1985); State v. Vigne, 01-2940, p. 9 (La. 6/21/02), 820 So.2d 533, 539 (citing Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984)); State v. Edwards, 434 So.2d 395, 397 (La. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Elder, Mark A.green1 sentence2010See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 539 , 108 S.Ct. 2529, 2534 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988)(“The inevitable discovery doctrine, with its distinct requirements, 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.”); see also United States v. Elder, 466 F.3d 1090, 1091 (7th Cir.2006)(“The usual understanding of that doctrine is that the exclusionary rule should not be applied when all the steps required to obt | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jamesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Drakegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Drakegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Melbertgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Shiversgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cookgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Knappergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Crews
green
2 sentences2008These three jur-isprudentially created doctrines which prevent the suppression of evidence are: (1) the independent source doctrine, (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, and (3) the attenuation doctrine, [footnote omitted] Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 487 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 455 (1963); U.S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Guy, 575 So.2d 429 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), writ denied 578 So.2d 930 (La.1991). 2008These three jur-isprudentially created doctrines which prevent the suppression of evidence are: (1) the independent source doctrine, (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, and (3) the attenuation doctrine, [footnote omitted] Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 487 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 455 (1963); U.S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Guy, 575 So.2d 429 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), writ denied 578 So.2d 930 (La.1991). | 18 | 1991–2020 |
Bush v. Winn-Dixie of Louisiana, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008These three jur-isprudentially created doctrines which prevent the suppression of evidence are: (1) the independent source doctrine, (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, and (3) the attenuation doctrine, [footnote omitted] Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 487 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 455 (1963); U.S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Guy, 575 So.2d 429 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), writ denied 578 So.2d 930 (La.1991). 2002These Lthree jurisprudentially created doctrines which prevent the suppression of evidence are: (1) the independent source doctrine, (2) the inevitable discovery doctrine, and (3) the attenuation doctrine. [footnote omitted] Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 487 , 83 S.Ct. 407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 455 (1963); U.S. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 100 S.Ct. 1244 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980); State v. Welch, 449 So.2d 468 (La.1984); State v. Guy, 575 So.2d 429 (La.App. 4 Cir.1991), writ denied 578 So.2d 930 (La.1991). | 6 | 1993–2012 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2013State v. Martello, 98-2066, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/17/99), 748 So.2d 1192, 1201 ; State v. Jones, 98-0963, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/24/98), 720 So.2d 1, 5 . 1999For a discussion of the doctrine of inevitable discovery, see State v. Jones, 98-0963, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/24/98), 720 So.2d 1 . | 3 | 1999–2013 |
State v. Martello
green
2 sentences2017State v. Jones, 12-0438, p. 21 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/13/13), 119 So.3d 9, 17 (citing State v. Martello, 98-2066, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/17/99), 748 So.2d 1192, 1201 ). 2013State v. Martello, 98-2066, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/17/99), 748 So.2d 1192, 1201 ; State v. Jones, 98-0963, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/24/98), 720 So.2d 1, 5 . | 2 | 2013–2017 |
State v. Tassin
neutral
2 sentences2008Thus, the Court was presumably aware of Belton at the time Zito was handed down. [3] This Court further held that "the search could not be justified under the exception for a vehicular inventory search because there was no indication that steps to impound defendant's vehicle were considered." Tassin, 758 So.2d at 354 . 2005"In Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 446-47 , 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2510-11 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984), the [United States] Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the State proves that the unconstitutionally obtained evidence would inevitably have been found in a constitutional manner." State v. Tassin, 99-1692, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/15/00), 758 So.2d 351, 354 . | 2 | 2005–2008 |
State v. Guidry
green
1 sentence2017In State v. Guidry , 03-625 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/27/04) , 866 So.2d 944 , the trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress based on a defective warrant. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Hill
green
1 sentence2017State v. Hill , 97-2551 (La. 11/6/98), 725 So.2d 1282 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. McGraw
green
1 sentence2016Inevitable Discovery Doctrine In State v. McGraw, 43,778 (La.App.2d Cir.12/10/08), 1 So.3d 645 , writ denied, 09-0317 (La.11/6/09), 21 So.3d 297 , this court stated that, under the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence found as a result of a violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights would be admissible if the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered, citing Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Dotie
green
1 sentence2016Inevitable Discovery Doctrine In State v. McGraw, 43,778 (La.App.2d Cir.12/10/08), 1 So.3d 645 , writ denied, 09-0317 (La.11/6/09), 21 So.3d 297 , this court stated that, under the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence found as a result of a violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights would be admissible if the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered, citing Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Fournette
green
1 sentence2013This Court thus held “because the warrant was not based upon any information gleaned from the illegal entry, it was not tainted by that entry, and the inevitable discovery doctrine would apply in this case if the search warrant was lawfully issued.” Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Flores
green
1 sentence2013Id. at p. 3, 37 So.3d at 998 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Morton
green
1 sentence2009Morion, 08-164 at 9-10, 993 So.2d at 658 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Scull
green
1 sentence2008This court has held that a "trial court is vested with great discretion when ruling on motion to suppress." State v. Scull, 93-2360, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/30/94), 639 So.2d 1239, 1245 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Fisher green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Knapper neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Rodriguez neutral | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| State v. Stokes green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.