5 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2024See Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 (422 SE2d 426) (1992) (holding that OCGA § 17-5-30 created a Georgia statutory exclusionary rule that did not contain the good faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule recognized in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (104 SCt 3405, 82 LE2d 677) (1984)). 2024See Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 (422 SE2d 426) (1992) (holding that OCGA § 17-5-30 created a Georgia statutory exclusionary rule that did not contain the good faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule recognized in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (104 SCt 3405, 82 LE2d 677) (1984)). | 2 | 2 |
Mobley v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 655 (III) ( 81 SCt 1684 , 6 LE2d 1081) (1961) (applying the federal exclusionary rule to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution); Mobley v. State, 307 Ga. 59, 75 (4) (a) ( 834 SE2d 785 ) (2019) (holding that OCGA § 17-5-30 “establishes a procedure for applying the exclusionary rule” developed by the United States Supreme Court in state criminal proceedings). 2024See also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (III) (81 SCt 1684, 6 LE2d 1081) (1961) (applying the federal exclusionary rule to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution); Mobley v. State, 307 Ga. 59, 75 (4) (a) (834 SE2d 785) (2019) (holding that OCGA § 17-5-30 “establishes a procedure for applying the exclusionary rule” developed by the United States Supreme Court in state criminal proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
Mapp v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2024See also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (III) (81 SCt 1684, 6 LE2d 1081) (1961) (applying the federal exclusionary rule to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution); Mobley v. State, 307 Ga. 59, 75 (4) (a) (834 SE2d 785) (2019) (holding that OCGA § 17-5-30 “establishes a procedure for applying the exclusionary rule” developed by the United States Supreme Court in state criminal proceedings). 2024See also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (III) (81 SCt 1684, 6 LE2d 1081) (1961) (applying the federal exclusionary rule to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution); Mobley v. State, 307 Ga. 59, 75 (4) (a) (834 SE2d 785) (2019) (holding that OCGA § 17-5-30 “establishes a procedure for applying the exclusionary rule” developed by the United States Supreme Court in state criminal proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
Gary v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 (422 SE2d 426) (1992) (holding that OCGA § 17-5-30 created a Georgia statutory exclusionary rule that did not contain the good faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule recognized in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (104 SCt 3405, 82 LE2d 677) (1984)). 2024See Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 (422 SE2d 426) (1992) (holding that OCGA § 17-5-30 created a Georgia statutory exclusionary rule that did not contain the good faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule recognized in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (104 SCt 3405, 82 LE2d 677) (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Raif v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Raif v. State, 109 Ga. App. 354, 361 (1) ( 136 SE2d 169 ) (1964). 2019See, e.g., Raif v. State, 109 Ga. App. 354, 361 (1) ( 136 SE2d 169 ) (1964). | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scottgreen1 sentence2011See Scott, supra. Like the Winsett Court, the Court in Scott acknowledged the significant costs imposed by the exclusionary rule because it precludes consideration of reliable, probative evidence and detracts from the truth-finding process. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Calandragreen2 sentences1996The federal exclusionary rule, applicable only when evidence has been seized pursuant to an unlawful search, operates as *178 "a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect...." United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (III), 94 S.Ct. 613, 620 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). 1996The federal exclusionary rule, applicable only when evidence has been seized pursuant to an unlawful search, operates as *178 "a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect...." United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (III), 94 S.Ct. 613, 620 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.