federal exclusionary rule in Alaska

6 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1963–1983 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Alaska 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Mapp v. Ohiogreen scotus · 1961 · cited in 5 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1963–1983 2 sentences 1980We noted that if Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) had not applied the federal exclusionary rule on unlawful searches and seizures to the state, “Alaska would have been free to retain the federal exclusionary rule or adopt the rule which obtained at common law.” 383 P.2d at 718 . . 1980We noted that if Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) had not applied the federal exclusionary rule on unlawful searches and seizures to the state, “Alaska would have been free to retain the federal exclusionary rule or adopt the rule which obtained at common law.” 383 P.2d at 718 . .	1	5
State v. Searsgreen alaska · 1976 · cited in 2 Alaska opinions naming this issue, 1977–1980 2 sentences 1980We noted that if Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) had not applied the federal exclusionary rule on unlawful searches and seizures to the state, "Alaska would have been free to retain the federal exclusionary rule or adopt the rule which obtained at common law." 383 P.2d at 718 . [19] See Rule 461, Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure (Approved Draft 1964); compare Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure § SS 290.2(2) (Proposed Official Draft 1975). [20] State v. Sears, 553 P.2d 907, 911-12 (Alaska 1976). 1977Where the litigant is a parolee, to state these arguments is to reveal their absurdity. . . . 516 P.2d at 1220 . (footnotes omitted) Subsequently, in State v. Sears, 553 P.2d 907 (Alaska 1976), we were confronted with the question of whether the federal exclusionary rule and our similar Criminal Rule 26(g) precluded the use of illegally-obtained evidence in a parole or probation revocation hearing.	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Weeks v. United States red · 1914 2 sentences 1980As to the origins and development of the exclusionary rule, see, e.g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 48 S.Ct. 564 , 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976). 1980As to the origins and development of the exclusionary rule, see, e.g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 48 S.Ct. 564 , 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976).	1	1980–1980
Olmstead v. United States red scotus · 1928 2 sentences 1980As to the origins and development of the exclusionary rule, see, e.g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 48 S.Ct. 564 , 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976). 1980As to the origins and development of the exclusionary rule, see, e.g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 48 S.Ct. 564 , 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976).	1	1980–1980
Ellison v. State green alaska · 1963 2 sentences 1980We noted that if Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) had not applied the federal exclusionary rule on unlawful searches and seizures to the state, "Alaska would have been free to retain the federal exclusionary rule or adopt the rule which obtained at common law." 383 P.2d at 718 . [19] See Rule 461, Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure (Approved Draft 1964); compare Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure § SS 290.2(2) (Proposed Official Draft 1975). [20] State v. Sears, 553 P.2d 907, 911-12 (Alaska 1976). 1980We noted that if Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) had not applied the federal exclusionary rule on unlawful searches and seizures to the state, “Alaska would have been free to retain the federal exclusionary rule or adopt the rule which obtained at common law.” 383 P.2d at 718 . .	1	1980–1980
Elkins v. United States green scotus · 1960 2 sentences 1980As to the origins and development of the exclusionary rule, see, e.g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 48 S.Ct. 564 , 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976). 1980As to the origins and development of the exclusionary rule, see, e.g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 48 S.Ct. 564 , 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976).	1	1980–1980
Terry v. Ohio green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 1980As to the origins and development of the exclusionary rule, see, e.g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 48 S.Ct. 564 , 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976). 1980As to the origins and development of the exclusionary rule, see, e.g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 48 S.Ct. 564 , 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976).	1	1980–1980
United States v. Janis green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 1980As to the origins and development of the exclusionary rule, see, e.g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 48 S.Ct. 564 , 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976). 1980As to the origins and development of the exclusionary rule, see, e.g., Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , 48 S.Ct. 564 , 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 , 96 S.Ct. 3021 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976).	1	1980–1980
Bush v. Reid green alaska · 1973 1 sentence 1977Where the litigant is a parolee, to state these arguments is to reveal their absurdity. . . . 516 P.2d at 1220 . (footnotes omitted) Subsequently, in State v. Sears, 553 P.2d 907 (Alaska 1976), we were confronted with the question of whether the federal exclusionary rule and our similar Criminal Rule 26(g) precluded the use of illegally-obtained evidence in a parole or probation revocation hearing.	1	1977–1977

Where else courts name it

TX 148 (1980–2025) CA 52 (1955–2026) PA 44 (1972–2025) MD 24 (1962–2024) OR 23 (1981–2024) WA 17 (1958–2026) IL 15 (1975–2018) FL 12 (1978–2014) NM 11 (1993–2018) MI 11 (1960–2022) IN 11 (1971–2018) IA 9 (2013–2024) MN 9 (1985–2025) NY 9 (1961–2023) NJ 8 (1958–1996) HI 7 (1961–2016) NC 7 (1968–2025) VA 7 (1974–2010) ND 6 (1999–2017) AK 6 (1963–1983) UT 6 (1992–2011) VT 6 (1991–2021) GA 5 (1996–2024) AZ 5 (1982–2019) CT 5 (1962–2016) TN 4 (1994–2019) WI 4 (2000–2025) CO 3 (1968–2019) DE 3 (2000–2023) OH 3 (1978–2018) KS 2 (1963–2018) ME 2 (1974–2021) ID 2 (1993–2026) NH 2 (1995–2003) AL 2 (1965–1969) OK 2 (1986–2007)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check