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 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davidson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010DAWSON, TEXAS PRACTICE: CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §§ 4.11-4.35 (2d ed. 2001) (discussing the distinctions between the federal constitutional exclusionary law and the Texas statutory exclusionary rule; noting that "Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes what is probably the broadest state exclusionary requirement of any American jurisdiction."). [24] See Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 7 2010DAWSON , TEXAS PRACTICE : CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §§ 4.11-4.35 (2d ed. 2001) (discussing the distinctions between the federal constitutional exclusionary law and the Texas statutory exclusionary rule; noting that “Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes what is probably the broadest state exclusionary requirement of any American jurisdiction.”). 24 See Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n.4 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 3 |
Chavez v. Stategreen2 sentences2010DAWSON, TEXAS PRACTICE: CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §§ 4.11-4.35 (2d ed. 2001) (discussing the distinctions between the federal constitutional exclusionary law and the Texas statutory exclusionary rule; noting that "Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes what is probably the broadest state exclusionary requirement of any American jurisdiction."). [24] See Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 7 2010App. 2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 714 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no pet.) (art. 38.23 is more protective of individual rights than the federal constitution). 25 Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d at 36 n.33; Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Imo v. Stategreen2 sentences2010DAWSON, TEXAS PRACTICE: CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §§ 4.11-4.35 (2d ed. 2001) (discussing the distinctions between the federal constitutional exclusionary law and the Texas statutory exclusionary rule; noting that "Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes what is probably the broadest state exclusionary requirement of any American jurisdiction."). [24] See Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 7 2010See Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitu tional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 714 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1992, no pet.) (art. 38.23 is more protective of individual rights than the federal constitution). . | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015This Court of Criminal Appeals explained in Wilson that the purpose of Article 38.23 is "to protect a suspect's privacy, property, and liberty rights against overzealous law enforcement . . . [and] to deter unlawful actions which violate the rights of criminal suspects in the acquisition of evidence for prosecution." Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452, 458-59 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carroll v. State
green
2 sentences2011The State argues, based on Carroll v. State, 911 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. App.–Austin 1995, no pet.), that Appellees‟ argument was an attack on the affidavit and was, therefore, limited to the four corners of the affidavit. 2011The State argues, based on Carroll v. State, 911 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. App.–Austin 1995, no pet.), that Appellee‟s argument was an attack on the affidavit and was, therefore, limited to the four corners of the affidavit. | 4 | 2011–2011 |
Miles v. State
green
2 sentences2010DAWSON, TEXAS PRACTICE: CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §§ 4.11-4.35 (2d ed. 2001) (discussing the distinctions between the federal constitutional exclusionary law and the Texas statutory exclusionary rule; noting that "Article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes what is probably the broadest state exclusionary requirement of any American jurisdiction."). [24] See Davidson v. State, 25 S.W.3d 183 , 186 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 7 2010App. 2000) (article 38.23 mandates the exclusion of evidence that has been obtained in contravention of legal or constitutional rights); Imo v. State, 826 S.W.2d 714, 714 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992, no pet.) (art. 38.23 is more protective of individual rights than the federal constitution). 25 Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d at 36 n.33; Chavez v. State, 9 S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Brick v. State
green
1 sentence2010App.2000) (Price, J., concurring); Brick v. State, 738 S.W.2d 676 , 679 n. 5 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.