6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 |
|---|---|---|
Idaho Department of Health & Welfare v. Doegreen2 sentences2024Rather, as the Idaho Court of Appeals noted in Idaho Department of Health and Welfare v. John Doe I, “other jurisdictions that have addressed the issue have consistently held that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule (or its state constitutional equivalent) is inapplicable in proceedings for the purpose of determining whether the transfer of custody or some other steps should be taken for the purpose of ensuring the protection of a juvenile.” 150 Idaho 103, 111 , 244 P.3d 247, 255 (Ct. App. 2010) (citing 1 Wayne R. 2024Rather, as the Idaho Court of Appeals noted in Idaho Department of Health and Welfare v. John Doe I, “other jurisdictions that have addressed the issue have consistently held that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule (or its state constitutional equivalent) is inapplicable in proceedings for the purpose of determining whether the transfer of custody or some other steps should be taken for the purpose of ensuring the protection of a juvenile.” 150 Idaho 103, 111 , 244 P.3d 247, 255 (Ct. App. 2010) (citing 1 Wayne R. | 1 | 1 |
Wolf v. Coloradored2 sentences1992See Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949) (the fourth amendment applies to the states, but the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not). 1992See Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949) (the fourth amendment applies to the states, but the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences1984See United States v. Leon, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). 1984See United States v. Leon, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Guzman
green
2 sentences2023The United States Supreme Court’s rationale for the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule has, over time, devolved into existing for only one purpose: “deterrence of police misconduct.” Guzman, 122 Idaho at 992 , 842 P.2d at 671 . 2023The United States Supreme Court’s rationale for the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule has, over time, devolved into existing for only one purpose: “deterrence of police misconduct.” Guzman, 122 Idaho at 992 , 842 P.2d at 671 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Weeks v. United States
red
2 sentences1992The fourth amendment exclusionary rule was first set forth in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). 1992The fourth amendment exclusionary rule was first set forth in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1992Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). 1992Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Byars v. United States
green
2 sentences1986The state officers then would pass the evidence obtained to the federal officials on what the courts described as a “silver platter.” To limit this abuse, the United States Supreme Court held that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule would apply if the state and federal authorities were engaged in a “joint operation.” Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 33 , 47 S.Ct. 248, 250 , 71 L.Ed. 520 (1927). 1986The state officers then would pass the evidence obtained to the federal officials on what the courts described as a “silver platter.” To limit this abuse, the United States Supreme Court held that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule would apply if the state and federal authorities were engaged in a “joint operation.” Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 33 , 47 S.Ct. 248, 250 , 71 L.Ed. 520 (1927). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
cluster 414044
green
1 sentence1986United States v. Hensel, 699 F.2d 18 (1st Cir.1983), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 958 , 103 *625 S.Ct. 2431, 77 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1983); United States v. Rose, supra. Here, no shocking acts were committed; neither did any American officer jointly engage in searching Burke’s wallet. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
United States v. Lawrence Rose
green
1 sentence1986United States v. Hensel, 699 F.2d 18 (1st Cir.1983), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 958 , 103 *625 S.Ct. 2431, 77 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1983); United States v. Rose, supra. Here, no shocking acts were committed; neither did any American officer jointly engage in searching Burke’s wallet. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Tate v. Daggett
green
1 sentence1986United States v. Hensel, 699 F.2d 18 (1st Cir.1983), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 958 , 103 *625 S.Ct. 2431, 77 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1983); United States v. Rose, supra. Here, no shocking acts were committed; neither did any American officer jointly engage in searching Burke’s wallet. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Horton v. Martin
green
1 sentence1986United States v. Hensel, 699 F.2d 18 (1st Cir.1983), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 958 , 103 *625 S.Ct. 2431, 77 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1983); United States v. Rose, supra. Here, no shocking acts were committed; neither did any American officer jointly engage in searching Burke’s wallet. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Rauch
green
2 sentences1984Finally, Walker asserts that the seizure of evidence from his home should have been suppressed because the officers violated Idaho’s knock-and-announce statutes. 4 He relies on State v. Rauch, 99 Idaho 586 , 586 P.2d 671 (1978). 1984Finally, Walker asserts that the seizure of evidence from his home should have been suppressed because the officers violated Idaho’s knock-and-announce statutes. 4 He relies on State v. Rauch, 99 Idaho 586 , 586 P.2d 671 (1978). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.