purposes of the exclusionary rule (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

purposes of the exclusionary rule in Florida

6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2014 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida 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)

CaseFollowedCited
Herring v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 2009 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009See Herring v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 695, 702 , 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) (“To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it.... [E]xclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence”).

2009See Herring v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 695, 702 , 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) (“To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it.... [E]xclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence”).

11
State v. Berniegreen
fladistctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
1 sentence

1986Bernie, 472 So.2d at 1247 (citations omitted).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Leon green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2009Id. (exclusionary rule applicable "only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule").

2009Id. (exclusionary rule applicable “only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule”).

22008–2009
United States v. Melvin Skinner green
ca6 · 2012
2 sentences

2014Id. - 26 - data from his cell phone.

2014Id. .

12014–2014
Tamer v. State green
fladistctapp · 1985
1 sentence

1985See United States v. Leon ; Massachusetts v. Sheppard ; United States v. Janis ; Tamer v. State, 463 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

11985–1985
Brown v. Illinois green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

1979Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 608-609 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring).

1979Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 608-609 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring).

11979–1979

Where else courts name it

VA 32 (1993–2025) CA 19 (1967–2013) IL 18 (1980–2019) MD 17 (1991–2024) TX 17 (1979–2026) KS 11 (1990–2025) PA 9 (1964–2014) LA 9 (1974–2001) NJ 8 (1981–2021) WI 8 (1991–2024) OH 8 (1989–2013) DC 7 (1977–2022) FL 6 (1979–2014) IA 5 (1979–2019) CO 5 (1989–2008) NY 4 (1961–2026) NV 4 (2013–2014) OR 4 (1974–1999) MI 3 (1992–2021) IN 3 (2007–2015) NH 3 (2005–2025) NC 3 (1986–1993) ND 3 (1990–2023) AK 2 (1985–1995) NE 2 (1999–2000) MN 2 (2015–2025) MS 2 (2000–2003) NM 2 (1991–1998) MA 2 (1985–2019) HI 2 (1997–2013) ME 2 (2020–2021) CT 2 (2000–2007) AL 2 (2000–2012)

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