6 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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. Vinsongreen2 sentences2009However, “[j]ust as the ‘fruit’ |2nof a Fourth Amendment violation need not, under all circumstances, be suppressed, a confession that follows a Fifth Amendment violation is not, under all circumstances, barred from use as evidence.” State v. Vinson, 854 S.W.2d 615, 622 (Mo.Ct.App.1993). 2009However, "[j]ust as the `fruit' of a Fourth Amendment violation need not, under all circumstances, be suppressed, a confession that follows a Fifth Amendment *784 violation is not, under all circumstances, barred from use as evidence." State v. Vinson, 854 S.W.2d 615, 622 (Mo.Ct.App. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2009In the instant case, Osburn’s Fifth Amendment right was violated; as such, this Fifth Amendment violation “triggers the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine requiring the suppression of the fruits of that constitutional violation.” Id., 544 N.W.2d at 553 ; see also Smith v. State, 132 Ga.App. 491 , 208 S.E.2d 351 (1974) (holding that where appellant’s first statement was inadmissible due to the State’s failure to show a waiver of his right to counsel, and where the State did not demonstrate that appellant’s subsequent confessions were obtained by means sufficient to purge the underlying illega 2009In the instant case, Osburn’s Fifth Amendment right was violated; as such, this Fifth Amendment violation “triggers the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine requiring the suppression of the fruits of that constitutional violation.” Id., 544 N.W.2d at 553 ; see also Smith v. State, 132 Ga.App. 491 , 208 S.E.2d 351 (1974) (holding that where appellant’s first statement was inadmissible due to the State’s failure to show a waiver of his right to counsel, and where the State did not demonstrate that appellant’s subsequent confessions were obtained by means sufficient to purge the underlying illega | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2003When reviewing the circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence from a search, “we conduct a de novo review based on the totality of the circumstances, reviewing findings of historical facts for clear error and determining whether those facts give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, giving due weight to inferences drawn by the trial court.” Davis v. State, 351 Ark. 406, 413 , 94 S.W.3d 892, 896 (2003) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996)). 2003When reviewing the circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence from a search, “we conduct a de novo review based on the totality of the circumstances, reviewing findings of historical facts for clear error and determining whether those facts give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, giving due weight to inferences drawn by the trial court.” Davis v. State, 351 Ark. 406, 413 , 94 S.W.3d 892, 896 (2003) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wong Sun v. United States
green
2 sentences2009Hinojosa argues that the initial stop was unlawful, and, therefore, his statements and the evidence obtained after the stop were inadmissable under the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” established in Wong Sun v. United States, 871 U.S. 471 , 88 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). 1998Mr. Travis’s argument is that the rifle, discovered as a result of the stop he considers to have been unlawful, should be suppressed under the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). | 4 | 1979–2009 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences2009In the instant case, Osburn’s Fifth Amendment right was violated; as such, this Fifth Amendment violation “triggers the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine requiring the suppression of the fruits of that constitutional violation.” Id., 544 N.W.2d at 553 ; see also Smith v. State, 132 Ga.App. 491 , 208 S.E.2d 351 (1974) (holding that where appellant’s first statement was inadmissible due to the State’s failure to show a waiver of his right to counsel, and where the State did not demonstrate that appellant’s subsequent confessions were obtained by means sufficient to purge the underlying illega 2009In the instant case, Osburn’s Fifth Amendment right was violated; as such, this Fifth Amendment violation “triggers the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine requiring the suppression of the fruits of that constitutional violation.” Id., 544 N.W.2d at 553 ; see also Smith v. State, 132 Ga.App. 491 , 208 S.E.2d 351 (1974) (holding that where appellant’s first statement was inadmissible due to the State’s failure to show a waiver of his right to counsel, and where the State did not demonstrate that appellant’s subsequent confessions were obtained by means sufficient to purge the underlying illega | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ornelas v. United States
green
2 sentences2003When reviewing the circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence from a search, “we conduct a de novo review based on the totality of the circumstances, reviewing findings of historical facts for clear error and determining whether those facts give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, giving due weight to inferences drawn by the trial court.” Davis v. State, 351 Ark. 406, 413 , 94 S.W.3d 892, 896 (2003) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996)). 2003When reviewing the circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence from a search, “we conduct a de novo review based on the totality of the circumstances, reviewing findings of historical facts for clear error and determining whether those facts give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, giving due weight to inferences drawn by the trial court.” Davis v. State, 351 Ark. 406, 413 , 94 S.W.3d 892, 896 (2003) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996)). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences1979Appellant seeks to invoke the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,” citing Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 441 (1963). 1979Appellant seeks to invoke the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,” citing Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 (1920); and Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 441 (1963). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Nardone v. United States
green
2 sentences1979This doctrine, which had its inception in Silverthorne and gained its name in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939), is another facet of the exclusionary rule which has application only when the tree is poisoned by unlawful action by police officers. 1979This doctrine, which had its inception in Silverthorne and gained its name in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 , 60 S.Ct. 266 , 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939), is another facet of the exclusionary rule which has application only when the tree is poisoned by unlawful action by police officers. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.