8 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
County of Riverside v. McLaughlingreen1 sentence2010In order to determine whether the defendant’s extended restraint violated the Fourth Amendment, the court applied the standard for examining such extended restraints established by the United States Supreme Court in County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ceccolinigreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 280 , 98 S.Ct. 1054, 1062 , 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978) (holding that the Fourth Amendment 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"). 2001See, e.g., United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 280 , 98 S.Ct. 1054, 1062 , 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978) (holding that the Fourth Amendment 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"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences2019Evolution of the Federal Good-Faith Exception The landmark decision establishing the federal good-faith exception was issued by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897 , 913, 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (stating that the Court had not yet recognized any form of good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule but that its "evaluation of the costs and benefits of suppressing reliable physical evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate leads to the conclusion that such evidence s 2019Evolution of the Federal Good-Faith Exception The landmark decision establishing the federal good-faith exception was issued by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897 , 913, 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (stating that the Court had not yet recognized any form of good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule but that its "evaluation of the costs and benefits of suppressing reliable physical evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate leads to the conclusion that such evidence s | 3 | 2016–2019 |
State v. Huddleston
green
1 sentence2010In Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d at 671-72 , the Tennessee Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to suppress a confession obtained by police after exposing the defendant to a prolonged restraint of liberty following his arrest without a warrant. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Oregon v. Elstad
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 306 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 . 2008Id. at 306 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Jones v. United States
red
2 sentences1982DUNCAN and SCOTT, JJ., concur. * Compare and contrast United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 . 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980), in which the Supreme Court overturned the “automatic standing” rule of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), upon which the defendant had relied at trial to establish his standing to invoke the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. 1982DUNCAN and SCOTT, JJ., concur. * Compare and contrast United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 . 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980), in which the Supreme Court overturned the “automatic standing” rule of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), upon which the defendant had relied at trial to establish his standing to invoke the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
United States v. Calandra
green
2 sentences1982In holding that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings, the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 , 94 S.Ct. 613 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974), suggested that the exclusionary rule should not be applied in every type of criminal proceeding, but only in those in which it can effectively serve to deter government misconduct. 1982In holding that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings, the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 , 94 S.Ct. 613 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974), suggested that the exclusionary rule should not be applied in every type of criminal proceeding, but only in those in which it can effectively serve to deter government misconduct. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
United States v. Salvucci
green
2 sentences1982DUNCAN and SCOTT, JJ., concur. * Compare and contrast United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 . 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980), in which the Supreme Court overturned the “automatic standing” rule of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), upon which the defendant had relied at trial to establish his standing to invoke the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. 1982DUNCAN and SCOTT, JJ., concur. * Compare and contrast United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 . 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980), in which the Supreme Court overturned the “automatic standing” rule of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), upon which the defendant had relied at trial to establish his standing to invoke the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.