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.
8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah 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. Thurmangreen2 sentences2010Moreover, an exploitation analysis "is triggered only if the prior illegality is a violation of the Fourth Amendment," State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256, 1262 (Utah 1993), but R.A.'s claim that Miranda warnings were required pertains to his Fifth Amendment rights. 2010Moreover, an exploitation analysis "is triggered only if the prior illegality is a violation of the Fourth Amendment," State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256, 1262 (Utah 1993), but R.A.'s claim that Miranda warnings were required pertains to his Fifth Amendment rights. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Shoulderbladegreen2 sentences2010Thus, "[when conducting an exploitation analysis, a court 'evaluates the relationship between offi *75 cial misconduct and subsequently discovered evidence to determine if excluding the evidence will effectively deter future ilegalities"" Id. (quoting State v. Shoulderblade, 905 P.2d 289, 292 (Utah 1995)). 2002When conducting an exploitation analysis, a court “evaluates the relationship between official misconduct and subsequently discovered evidence to determine if excluding the evidence will effectively deter future illegalities.” State v. Shoulderblade, 905 P.2d 289, 292 (Utah 1995). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Arroyogreen2 sentences2012See generally State v. Arroyo, 796 P.2d 684, 688 (Utah 1990) (rejecting a pure "but for" test in suppression cases in favor of the exploitation test enunciated in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)); State v. Newland, 2010 UT App 380, ¶ 27 , 253 P.3d 71 (concluding that police did not exploit an illegal search to obtain consent where the defendant was unaware of the prior search when he consented). *20 T9 "It is well established that Utah appellate courts will not consider claims that are inadequately briefed." State v. Garner, 2002 UT App 234, ¶ 8 , 1992“The factors to be considered in an exploitation analysis include temporal proximity of the illegality and the consent, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” State v. Godina-Luna, 826 P.2d at 654 (Utah App.1992) (citing Arroyo, 796 P.2d at 690 -91 n. 4). | 1 | 4 |
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2012See generally State v. Arroyo, 796 P.2d 684, 688 (Utah 1990) (rejecting a pure "but for" test in suppression cases in favor of the exploitation test enunciated in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)); State v. Newland, 2010 UT App 380, ¶ 27 , 253 P.3d 71 (concluding that police did not exploit an illegal search to obtain consent where the defendant was unaware of the prior search when he consented). *20 T9 "It is well established that Utah appellate courts will not consider claims that are inadequately briefed." State v. Garner, 2002 UT App 234, ¶ 8 , 2012See generally State v. Arroyo, 796 P.2d 684, 688 (Utah 1990) (rejecting a pure "but for" test in suppression cases in favor of the exploitation test enunciated in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)); State v. Newland, 2010 UT App 380, ¶ 27 , 253 P.3d 71 (concluding that police did not exploit an illegal search to obtain consent where the defendant was unaware of the prior search when he consented). *20 T9 "It is well established that Utah appellate courts will not consider claims that are inadequately briefed." State v. Garner, 2002 UT App 234, ¶ 8 , | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harmongreen1 sentence2010Accordingly, we do not address the exploitation issue. [8] The supreme court concluded that the officer's statement that he could come back with a warrant was "deceptive" because it "implie[d] full confidence that a warrant [would] issue." State v. Harmon, 910 P.2d 1196, 1206-07 (Utah 1995). | 1 | 1 |
New York v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1993See New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 19 , 110 S.Ct. 1640, 1643-44 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990) (citing United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 471 , 100 S.Ct. 1244, 1250 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980)). 1993See New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 19 , 110 S.Ct. 1640, 1643-44 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990) (citing United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 471 , 100 S.Ct. 1244, 1250 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Crewsgreen2 sentences1993See New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 19 , 110 S.Ct. 1640, 1643-44 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990) (citing United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 471 , 100 S.Ct. 1244, 1250 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980)). 1993See New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 19 , 110 S.Ct. 1640, 1643-44 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990) (citing United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 471 , 100 S.Ct. 1244, 1250 , 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Godina-Lunagreen1 sentence1992“The factors to be considered in an exploitation analysis include temporal proximity of the illegality and the consent, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” State v. Godina-Luna, 826 P.2d at 654 (Utah App.1992) (citing Arroyo, 796 P.2d at 690 -91 n. 4). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2010The primary purpose of the exploitation analysis is to identify situations where, even given a defendant's voluntary consent, the only way " 'to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty [against unlawful searches and seizures is to] ... remov[e] the incentive to disregard it'" State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125, ¶ 62 , 63 P.3d 650 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 599-600 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 LEd.2d 416 (1975)). 2010The primary purpose of the exploitation analysis is to identify situations where, even given a defendant's voluntary consent, the only way " 'to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty [against unlawful searches and seizures is to] ... remov[e] the incentive to disregard it'" State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125, ¶ 62 , 63 P.3d 650 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 599-600 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 LEd.2d 416 (1975)). | 4 | 1992–2010 |
State v. Newland
green
2 sentences2012See generally State v. Arroyo, 796 P.2d 684, 688 (Utah 1990) (rejecting a pure "but for" test in suppression cases in favor of the exploitation test enunciated in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)); State v. Newland, 2010 UT App 380, ¶ 27 , 253 P.3d 71 (concluding that police did not exploit an illegal search to obtain consent where the defendant was unaware of the prior search when he consented). *20 T9 "It is well established that Utah appellate courts will not consider claims that are inadequately briefed." State v. Garner, 2002 UT App 234, ¶ 8 , 2012See generally State v. Arroyo, 796 P.2d 684, 688 (Utah 1990) (rejecting a pure "but for" test in suppression cases in favor of the exploitation test enunciated in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)); State v. Newland, 2010 UT App 380, ¶ 27 , 253 P.3d 71 (concluding that police did not exploit an illegal search to obtain consent where the defendant was unaware of the prior search when he consented). *20 T9 "It is well established that Utah appellate courts will not consider claims that are inadequately briefed." State v. Garner, 2002 UT App 234, ¶ 8 , | 1 | 2012–2012 |
West Jordan City v. Goodman
green
2 sentences2012"A brief must go beyond providing conclusory statements and fully identify, analyze, and cite its legal arguments." West Jordan City v. Goodman, 2006 UT 27, ¶ 29 , 135 P.3d 874 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2012"A brief must go beyond providing conclusory statements and fully identify, analyze, and cite its legal arguments." West Jordan City v. Goodman, 2006 UT 27, ¶ 29 , 135 P.3d 874 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Garner
green
2 sentences2012See generally State v. Arroyo, 796 P.2d 684, 688 (Utah 1990) (rejecting a pure "but for" test in suppression cases in favor of the exploitation test enunciated in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)); State v. Newland, 2010 UT App 380, ¶ 27 , 253 P.3d 71 (concluding that police did not exploit an illegal search to obtain consent where the defendant was unaware of the prior search when he consented). *20 T9 "It is well established that Utah appellate courts will not consider claims that are inadequately briefed." State v. Garner, 2002 UT App 234, ¶ 8 , 2012See generally State v. Arroyo, 796 P.2d 684, 688 (Utah 1990) (rejecting a pure "but for" test in suppression cases in favor of the exploitation test enunciated in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)); State v. Newland, 2010 UT App 380, ¶ 27 , 253 P.3d 71 (concluding that police did not exploit an illegal search to obtain consent where the defendant was unaware of the prior search when he consented). *20 T9 "It is well established that Utah appellate courts will not consider claims that are inadequately briefed." State v. Garner, 2002 UT App 234, ¶ 8 , | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Hansen
green
2 sentences2010The primary purpose of the exploitation analysis is to identify situations where, even given a defendant's voluntary consent, the only way " 'to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty [against unlawful searches and seizures is to] ... remov[e] the incentive to disregard it'" State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125, ¶ 62 , 63 P.3d 650 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 599-600 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 LEd.2d 416 (1975)). 2010The primary purpose of the exploitation analysis is to identify situations where, even given a defendant's voluntary consent, the only way " 'to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty [against unlawful searches and seizures is to] ... remov[e] the incentive to disregard it'" State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125, ¶ 62 , 63 P.3d 650 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 599-600 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 LEd.2d 416 (1975)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Elkins v. United States
green
2 sentences2002Thus, the purpose behind excluding evidence obtained by police exploitation is “ ‘to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it.’ ” Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 599-600 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (quoting Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (I960)). ¶ 63 When conducting the exploitation analysis, we always keep in mind this deterrence purpose. 2002Thus, the purpose behind excluding evidence obtained by police exploitation is “ ‘to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it.’ ” Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 599-600 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (quoting Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (I960)). ¶ 63 When conducting the exploitation analysis, we always keep in mind this deterrence purpose. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.