43 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025A related evidentiary concept, highly relevant here, is that of the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” under which “evidence derived from an illegal search may also be subject to suppression.” State v. Gaines, 154 Wn.2d 711, 717 , 116 P.3d 993 (2005); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-88 (1963). “[T]he attenuation doctrine defines the parameters of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine. 2025Evidence is not ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ if the connection between the - 11 - No. 86402-5-I/12 challenged evidence and the illegal actions of the police is ‘so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.’” Eserjose, 171 Wn.2d at 921 (quoting Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 487 .). | 5 | 9 |
State v. O'BREMSKIgreen2 sentences2011To prevent the government from benefiting from such unlawful activity, article I, section 7 also requires suppression of evidence derived from an illegal search or seizure under the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine." Id. at 717 , 116 P.3d 993 (citing State v. O'Bremski, 70 Wash.2d 425, 428 , 423 P.2d 530 (1967)). ¶ 37 However, we have recognized that under article I, section 7, only evidence obtained as a result of unlawful government activity must be excluded in order to respect both the privacy interests of the individual and the State's interest in prosecuting criminal activity. 2011To prevent the government from benefiting from such unlawful activity, article I, section 7 also requires suppression of evidence derived from an illegal search or seizure under the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine." Id. at 717 , 116 P.3d 993 (citing State v. O'Bremski, 70 Wash.2d 425, 428 , 423 P.2d 530 (1967)). ¶ 37 However, we have recognized that under article I, section 7, only evidence obtained as a result of unlawful government activity must be excluded in order to respect both the privacy interests of the individual and the State's interest in prosecuting criminal activity. | 4 | 8 |
State v. Earlygreen2 sentences2003See State v. Weller, 76 Wash.App. 165, 168 , 884 P.2d 610 (1994) ("Evidence is only inadmissible as `fruit of the poisonous tree' if it has been gathered by exploitation of the original illegality."); see also State v. Early, 36 Wash.App. 215, 221-22 , 674 P.2d 179 (1983) (evidence obtained from independent source need not be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine). 2003App. 215, 221-22 , 674 P.2d 179 (1983) (evidence obtained from independent source need not be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Gainesgreen2 sentences2025A related evidentiary concept, highly relevant here, is that of the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” under which “evidence derived from an illegal search may also be subject to suppression.” State v. Gaines, 154 Wn.2d 711, 717 , 116 P.3d 993 (2005); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-88 (1963). “[T]he attenuation doctrine defines the parameters of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine. 2018“In addition, evidence derived from an illegal search may also be subject to suppression under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” Gaines, 154 Wn.2d at 717 . | 2 | 13 |
State v. Kinzygreen2 sentences2004See Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 396-97 (Madsen, J., concurring). 2004Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d at 382 , 5 P.3d 668 . [5] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). [6] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [7] Though only four justices, myself included, signed the majority in Kinzy, Justice Madsen's concurrence did not deviate from the majority's application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Eserjosegreen2 sentences2025Evidence is not ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ if the connection between the - 11 - No. 86402-5-I/12 challenged evidence and the illegal actions of the police is ‘so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.’” Eserjose, 171 Wn.2d at 921 (quoting Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 487 .). 2019Rather, we have consistently adhered to the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine." Id. at 919-20 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Ridgwaygreen2 sentences2015In addition, evidence derived from an illegal search may also be subject to suppression under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine." Jd.; see also State v. Ridgway, 57 Wn. 2015App. 915, 920 , 790 P.2d 1263 (1990) (If "the showing of probable cause was dependent on information gained during an unlawful search, all of the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant [is] tainted and, therefore, inadmissible"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinzygreen2 sentences2004Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d at 382 , 5 P.3d 668 . [5] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). [6] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [7] Though only four justices, myself included, signed the majority in Kinzy, Justice Madsen's concurrence did not deviate from the majority's application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. 2004See Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d at 396-97 , 5 P.3d 668 (Madsen, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wellergreen2 sentences2003See State v. Weller, 76 Wash.App. 165, 168 , 884 P.2d 610 (1994) ("Evidence is only inadmissible as `fruit of the poisonous tree' if it has been gathered by exploitation of the original illegality."); see also State v. Early, 36 Wash.App. 215, 221-22 , 674 P.2d 179 (1983) (evidence obtained from independent source need not be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine). 2003See State v. Weller, 76 Wash.App. 165, 168 , 884 P.2d 610 (1994) ("Evidence is only inadmissible as `fruit of the poisonous tree' if it has been gathered by exploitation of the original illegality."); see also State v. Early, 36 Wash.App. 215, 221-22 , 674 P.2d 179 (1983) (evidence obtained from independent source need not be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gaines
green
2 sentences2025A related evidentiary concept, highly relevant here, is that of the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” under which “evidence derived from an illegal search may also be subject to suppression.” State v. Gaines, 154 Wn.2d 711, 717 , 116 P.3d 993 (2005); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-88 (1963). “[T]he attenuation doctrine defines the parameters of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine. 2011Under Harris , our analysis would end there; but to satisfy article I, section 7, it is necessary to determine whether the confession, though the direct product of lawful custodial interrogation, was the indirect product of the prior arrest, which lacked the "authority of law." As we said in Gaines , the exclusionary rule applies equally to "evidence seized during an illegal search [or seizure]," and "evidence derived from an illegal search [or seizure] under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine." Gaines, 154 Wash.2d at 716, 717 , 116 P.3d 993 (emphasis added). | 8 | 2008–2025 |
State v. Eisfeldt
green
2 sentences2018State v. Eisfeldt, 163 Wn.2d 628, 640 , 185 P.3d 580 (2008). 2017State v. Eisfeldt, 163 Wn.2d 628,640 , 185 P.3d 580 (2008). 12 No. 34154-2-111 State v. Souza Jon Souza fleetingly argues that the dog sniff does not create probable cause because Isko was trained to alert to marijuana, among other drugs, and marijuana is now legal in the State of Washington. | 5 | 2015–2018 |
State v. Eisfeldt
green
2 sentences2018State v. Eisfeldt, 163 Wn.2d 628, 640 , 185 P.3d 580 (2008). 2017State v. Eisfeldt, 163 Wn.2d 628,640 , 185 P.3d 580 (2008). 12 No. 34154-2-111 State v. Souza Jon Souza fleetingly argues that the dog sniff does not create probable cause because Isko was trained to alert to marijuana, among other drugs, and marijuana is now legal in the State of Washington. | 5 | 2015–2018 |
State v. Tan Le
green
2 sentences2015State v. Le. 103 Wn. 2013State v. Tan Le, 103 Wn. | 2 | 2013–2015 |
State v. Faford
green
2 sentences2014As Kipp points out, accepting the State's argument would mean that a confession of child molestation , __________ 6 While the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine generally does not apply to private , searches, Washington's privacy act is applied broadly as to require exclusion of any "evidence exclusively and din~.ctly f1owing from a privacy act violation." J·iaford, 128 Wn.2d at 489 . 2014While the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine generally does not apply to private searches, Washington’s privacy act is applied broadly as to require exclusion of any “evidence exclusively and directly flowing from a privacy act violation.” Faford, 128 Wn.2d at 489 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Winterstein
green
2 sentences2011State v. Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d 620, 634 , 220 P.3d 1226 (2009) (citing Gaines, 154 Wash.2d at 720 , 116 P.3d 993 ). 2011State v. Winterstein, 167 Wn.2d 620, 634 , 220 P.3d 1226 (2009) (citing Gaines, 154 Wn.2d at 720 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Winterstein
green
2 sentences2011State v. Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d 620, 634 , 220 P.3d 1226 (2009) (citing Gaines, 154 Wash.2d at 720 , 116 P.3d 993 ). 2011State v. Winterstein, 167 Wn.2d 620, 634 , 220 P.3d 1226 (2009) (citing Gaines, 154 Wn.2d at 720 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Burdeau v. McDowell
green
2 sentences1996Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 , 41 S.Ct. 574 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 , 13 A.L.R. 1159 (1921); State v. Agee, 15 Wash.App. 709, 713 , 552 P.2d 1084 (1976), aff'd, 89 Wash.2d 416 , 573 P.2d 355 (1977). 1996Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 , 41 S.Ct. 574 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 , 13 A.L.R. 1159 (1921); State v. Agee, 15 Wash.App. 709, 713 , 552 P.2d 1084 (1976), aff'd, 89 Wash.2d 416 , 573 P.2d 355 (1977). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Merklinghaus v. Bracken
neutral
1 sentence2021App. 2d 867 , 881, 428 P.3d 1251 , review granted, cause remanded, 193 Wn.2d 1008 , 439 P.3d 1075 (2019). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Herrera-Castro
neutral
1 sentence2021App. 2d 867 , 881, 428 P.3d 1251 , review granted, cause remanded, 193 Wn.2d 1008 , 439 P.3d 1075 (2019). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State Of Washington v. Blayne Michael Perez
neutral
1 sentence2021App. 2d 867 , 881, 428 P.3d 1251 , review granted, cause remanded, 193 Wn.2d 1008 , 439 P.3d 1075 (2019). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Mayfield
green
1 sentence2020Mayfield, 192 Wn.2d at 888-89 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Eserjose
green
2 sentences2019Rather, we have consistently adhered to the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine." Id. at 919-20, 259 P.3d 172 (footnote omitted). 2019We also agree with the lead opinion that on a practical level, "[a]n alternative 'but for' principle would make it virtually impossible to rehabilitate an investigation once misconduct has occurred, granting suspected criminals a permanent immunity unless, by chance, other law enforcement officers initiate an independent investigation." Id. at 922, 259 P.3d 172 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Kull
green
1 sentence2018The trial court did not err in concluding that Valencia's testimony corroborated more than harmless details. 40 State v. Kull, 155 Wn.2d 80, 88 , 118 P.3d 307 (2005). - 14 - No. 76902-2-1 / 15 Last, Perez asserts that because police did not have probable cause to arrest him, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine requires suppression of any evidence that he possessed heroin. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Kull
green
1 sentence2018The trial court did not err in concluding that Valencia's testimony corroborated more than harmless details. 40 State v. Kull, 155 Wn.2d 80, 88 , 118 P.3d 307 (2005). - 14 - No. 76902-2-1 / 15 Last, Perez asserts that because police did not have probable cause to arrest him, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine requires suppression of any evidence that he possessed heroin. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Ladson
green
1 sentence2008State v. Gaines, 154 Wn.2d 711, 716-17 , 116 P.3d 993 (2005) (citing State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 359 , 979 P.2d 833 (1999); State v. O’Bremski, 70 Wn.2d 425, 428 , 423 P.2d 530 (1967) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S. Ct. 407 , 9 L. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Ladson
green
1 sentence2008State v. Gaines, 154 Wn.2d 711, 716-17 , 116 P.3d 993 (2005) (citing State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 359 , 979 P.2d 833 (1999); State v. O’Bremski, 70 Wn.2d 425, 428 , 423 P.2d 530 (1967) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S. Ct. 407 , 9 L. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2004Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d at 382 , 5 P.3d 668 . [5] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). [6] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [7] Though only four justices, myself included, signed the majority in Kinzy, Justice Madsen's concurrence did not deviate from the majority's application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. 2004Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d at 382 , 5 P.3d 668 . [5] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). [6] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [7] Though only four justices, myself included, signed the majority in Kinzy, Justice Madsen's concurrence did not deviate from the majority's application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2004Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d at 382 , 5 P.3d 668 . [5] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). [6] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [7] Though only four justices, myself included, signed the majority in Kinzy, Justice Madsen's concurrence did not deviate from the majority's application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. 2004Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d at 382 , 5 P.3d 668 . [5] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). [6] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [7] Though only four justices, myself included, signed the majority in Kinzy, Justice Madsen's concurrence did not deviate from the majority's application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Thompson
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 796-97, 51 P.3d 143 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Agee green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Agee
green
2 sentences1996Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 , 41 S.Ct. 574 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 , 13 A.L.R. 1159 (1921); State v. Agee, 15 Wash.App. 709, 713 , 552 P.2d 1084 (1976), aff'd, 89 Wash.2d 416 , 573 P.2d 355 (1977). 1996Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 , 41 S.Ct. 574 , 65 L.Ed. 1048 , 13 A.L.R. 1159 (1921); State v. Agee, 15 Wash.App. 709, 713 , 552 P.2d 1084 (1976), aff'd, 89 Wash.2d 416 , 573 P.2d 355 (1977). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Byers red | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.